March 29, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 6


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome to our House of Assembly, the people's Chamber, fifty-five members of the Mount Pearl Senior's Independence Group & the 50+ Club. They are here to visit the House. I believe it is for the very first time that this group has visited our Chamber.

We would also like to welcome as well thirty-five Level II and Level III students from Queen Elizabeth Regional High School, and their teacher, Mr. Fred Wood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader on March 25. On March 25, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order in Committee of the Whole concerning an intervention made by the Committee Chair relating to the procedure being followed.

The member who had the floor was asking questions of a minister. The Chair suggested that it was up to the minister to decide if she wanted to answer the questions as they were asked, by leave, or wait until the member speaking had finished his ten minute segment before she answered all of his questions. The Chair then invited the member speaking to continue his remarks. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it was not uncommon for a speaker to allow a minister to use part of the speaker's time to answer a question. The Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs stated that those suggestions were correct.

When the Committee had risen and the Chair reported the adoption of the Interim Supply Resolution, the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order concerning the proceedings in Committee of the Whole and appealed the ruling of the Committee Chair. The Opposition House Leader stated at the time that he was asking for clarification of the practice in Committee.

First, in regard to the method of appealing a ruling of the Chair of Committee, it was the Chair of the Committee, at the request of a member of the Committee, who reports to the Speaker. The Chair will not dwell on that particular aspect at this time.

It appears that during debate in Committee, when the minister did not rise as the individual questions were being asked, the Committee Chair assumed that she was waiting until the member had completed his questions, at which time the minister would answer all the questions during her ten minute speaking segment. The Chair then invited the member asking the questions to continue. In the opinion of the Chair, proceedings were in order and therefore rules that there is no point of order.

To respond to the Opposition House Leader's request for clarification about the allocation of speaking time in Committee of Supply, our practice is that each speaker has ten minutes to speak, except for the minister introducing his or her estimates and the member replying. If the minister or person being questioned so wishes, and with leave of the questioner and Committee, he or she may answer questions as they are asked rather than waiting until the member has used his or her ten minute speaking time to reply.

Thank you very much.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon's members' statements, we have statements from the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for Torngat Mountains, and the Member for Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a constituent of mine, Mr. David Regular of Harbour Grace, on being elected to the newly formed board of directors of the National Youth Talent Contest.

Mr. Regular will serve as the only director for the Atlantic Canada region. A member of the highly successful Trinity Conception Fall Fair Committee, Mr. Regular also serves as a Newfoundland and Labrador provincial coordinator for the National Youth Talent Contest.

Mr. Regular, who will serve a two-year term on the board, is now working toward bringing this national event to this Province in the year 2006. Mr. Regular is a well respected member of the community and I am sure he will work diligently to ensure that his representation is strong.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mr. David Regular on his recent appointment to the National Youth Talent Contest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to highlight a young resident of St. John's Centre, Mr. Cody McLean.

Cody is an eleven-year-old student at Holy Cross Elementary School, who participates in tae kwon do. He has participated in the Atlantic Championships held here in St. John's in 2002 and was awarded two gold medals. He also represented the Province at the Atlantic Championships last year in Halifax. This coming May, Cody will be attending the Canadian National Taekwon Do Championships to be held in the Province of Ontario.

Aside from his athletic accomplishments, Cody McLean has also been awarded a $100 financial scholarship recognizing his academic success, and I had the pleasure of presenting him with the Holy Cross Self-Esteem Award earlier this year.

I ask that all hon. members of this House join with me in acknowledging Cody's success and wishing him good luck at the National Championships in May.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to the organizers, athletes, coaches and families who participated in the Canadian National Disabled Skiers Family Fun Festival held at Marble Mountain, Steady Brook, during the week of February 29 to March 5, 2004.

The week-long festival was hosted by the Corner Brook Chapter of the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers which saw over 100 participants registered from across Canada. Each day, skiers participated in ski improvement classes, and each evening was filled with social events with a very Newfoundland flavour. This is a second time Marble Mountain has hosted this event. The first time was in 1994, and it is only the third time the event has been held outside Alberta or British Columbia.

I commend the organizers and many volunteers for their dedication, hard work and commitment to bring this event to Corner Brook and Marble Mountain.

As well, I extend congratulations to Margaret (Mugs) Tibbo, who was awarded the Carl Hilzinger Award.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: This award is presented to an individual for their outstanding contribution in developing skiing for people with disabilities.

I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to the Corner Brook Chapter of the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers on a job well done, and to the participants who show the true spirit of determination and prove to us all that a disability is an opportunity of which they take full advantage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I wish to recognize a tremendous contribution to our community of Mount Pearl by the Seniors Independence Group and the Mount Pearl 50+ Club Members.

They are very active and vibrant groups in our community in Mount Pearl, and we are very fortunate to have these active adult groups.

The Mount Pearl 50+ program is mostly about being physically active, with social activity involvement. The Mount Pearl Seniors Independent Group, their main goal is keeping seniors independent and healthy in their own homes.

They are always on the move, Mr. Speaker, all year round, and some of these activities are: Exercise (dry land and in the swimming pool), Bowling, Line Dancing, Friendship Program, Craft Program, Seasonal Dances - Paddy's Day, Valentine's, Halloween and Christmas included.

The Seniors Independence Group, Mr. Speaker, have a drop-in centre and that comes every Wednesday at the Park Place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. DENINE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DENINE: - games and social afternoon, Foot Care Clinics with the VON, SnowBusters Program, odd jobs in the summer, such as mowing lawns and painting fences.

I must also mention that the Parks and Recreation Department in the City of Mount Pearl also works in conjunction with these groups. They assist them in summer outings, and these outings have included: Castle Hill in Placentia, Bay Roberts-Carbonear-Hant's Harbour, Brigus Blueberry Festival, and Southern Shore trip to Horse Chops. When they go on these trips, they meet other seniors groups and usually there are some social events planned for them.

A lot of seniors are involved in both associations. They are a great group of people, Mr. Speaker, and again I welcome them here today.

I must mention an upcoming event for the seniors in Mount Pearl, and that is Seniors Awareness Day at the Reid Community Centre on May 12, an Information Day on Health and Resources for Seniors, and this is free of charge.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone here in this House today to offer congratulations on a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, March 27, marked the twenty-sixth annual winning of the Labrador Heritage dog team race. This year it was held in the community of Rigolet, with fourteen drivers taking part in the event, including one female driver. Teams from the communities of Mud Lake, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet took part.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Kenny Pottle on winning the event. I want to thank the committee for organizing such an event. It shows that the spirit of Labrador Heritage is alive and well, and we all look forward to the running of the race next year, which will be held in the Town of Makkovik.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I rise today to offer congratulations to a group known as Tourism Elliston. Tourism Elliston was recently award the very prestigious Doug Wheeler Award by the provincial government. It is an award that recognizes a group or an individual's contribution to tourism here in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, Tourism Elliston is probably a group of people from whom we can all take a great lesson. Back when the Northern cod moratorium was brought about, this community was in decline, and responsible people in the community looked around to see what they had in their community that they could provide to be a focal point to keep the community vibrant. They looked around and saw that they had root cellars. In fact, 135 root cellars today is documented as a focal point in that particular community. They became known as the root cellar capital of the world. Last year, in excess of 20,000 people visited the Town of Elliston to look at their root cellars.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: If I could be allowed, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, today they have what is known as the Puffin Festival, and that takes place from July 13 to July 20 of this particular year. The highlight of that festivity is the serving of a Jiggs' dinner. The Jiggs' dinner is being provided with vegetables that were grown by volunteers in the communities, kept in the root cellars over winter, and served as a big festival for that week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I am certain every Member of this House of Assembly joins with me today in offering congratulations to Tourism Elliston.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to inform the House of an important provincial pilot project, "Clear the Air - It's Ours to Share, Smoke Free Spaces", to address the issue of our youth and the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This initiative is a joint project with Health Canada and the Province's Departments of Health and Community Services and Education.

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada reports that last year 31 per cent of children in Newfoundland and Labrador were regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in the home and face health risks as a result of this exposure. Exposure to second-hand smoke also causes more than 8,000 childhood illnesses each year in this Province, and over 100 people in this Province die each year as a result of diseases related to second-hand smoke.

Nine provincial schools are using a Smoke-Free Spaces Activist Toolkit CD Rom to engage youth in taking action to create smoke-free environments in their schools, homes and communities.

This resource provides young people with the inspiration and information they require to become effective advocates for creating smoke-free environments. All schools have participate in a one day orientation workshop and a brainstorm session on potential action plans to be implemented in their school or community.

To date, some of the priority areas that youth have identified include developing a smoke-free school policy, educating parents and family members about the benefits of creating smoke-free homes and creating smoke-free spaces in local public buildings.

The project will also build on and support current actions being taken in our Province to create smoke-free public places, workplaces and homes.

Mr. Speaker, the activities that youth in our schools have engaged in include erecting signs throughout the community with messages about the benefits of a smoke-free environment and writing a play to deliver messages to younger students and parents.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House will join me in congratulating our youth who are participating in this pilot project. The project is a valuable resource in not only reducing the harmful effects of second-hand smoke but also empowers our young population.

Mr. Speaker, in our Blue Print for the Future this government made a commitment to coordinate policies and spending in ways that lead to a healthier population and less demand for treatment of acute and chronic illnesses. Clear the Air - It's Ours to Share, Smoke-Free Spaces Pilot Project allows our youth to play an active role in promoting a healthier population as well as investing in a healthier future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her statement in advance.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are all there for clean air and eliminating smoke in the workplace and in public buildings. Actually, it was this government, when we were in power, that led the initiative to establish the Teen Tobacco Team which was a team of young people who were doing a lot of work, role models for the Province, promoting a smoke-free lifestyle in schools and amongst our peers, and the program itself was very successful.

It was also a Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, that led the cause to bring legislation into the House to eliminate smoking in food establishments and to have smoke-free public buildings throughout the Province. All this was done, Mr. Speaker, as a deterrent to eliminate smoke in the public and to reduce the health affects on our population.

We also looked at other things, Mr. Speaker, that were a deterrent in terms of increasing the age that youth would be when they purchase cigarettes. As I said, we did all of these things in partnership with the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, to conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: I want to say to the minister that I am more concerned today with the abuse of prescription drugs amongst our teens and our youth. I can only hope that the minister will use the same aggressiveness and look at a campaign that would deal with prescription drugs and the growing problem that is out there in our schools and amongst our young people today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to congratulate and urge those involved in this project to work very diligently to encourage families, in particular, not to smoke in their homes. The figure of 31 per cent of children being regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in the home is certainly a high one, and anything that can be done to lower that would be desirable.

I would ask this government to reconsider its position taken in the last election that it would not ban smoke in the workplace of many, many hundreds of people who work in bars and drinking establishments, Mr. Speaker, where they are exposed to second-hand smoke.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - with a level of carcinogens and poisons in the air that would not be tolerated in an industrial work site. This is a question of workplace health and safety and one that I think this government can lead by example if we want young people and people in our homes not to smoke in front of their children because of the dangers, and we should do the same thing for our workers who happen to work in bars or drinking establishments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update this House on the measures taken by my officials to enforce highway safety in this Province.

This department has shown it is serious when it comes to ensuring the vehicles travelling on the Province's highways meet National Safety Code Standards.

In December, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspended the privileges of two companies to operate trucks on provincial highways. The impact of the two suspensions has been considerable. It has resulted in carriers improving their safety measures and requesting information on how to become compliant.

Government has since agreed to a staggered release of vehicles in the case of one of the two suspended companies. The company provided the Registrar with a detailed safety plan and demonstrated a willingness to follow it. The company has also hired a safety officer to implement the plan.

I am pleased to inform this House that the company has cooperated with the Registrar and additional vehicles will soon be released as part of the mutually-agreed upon arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, highway safety is a high priority of this House. The Motor Registration Division is undertaking broader investigations of carriers and inspection stations based on the results of routine inspections and official complaints.

As a result of this crackdown, a number of charges have been laid against Official Inspection Stations for issuing slips without properly inspecting the vehicles. We are also publicizing the actions we have taken to send a message that our staff are out there enforcing the law.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to working with commercial carriers to ensure the Province's highways are safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would to thank the minister for her advanced copy. I have dealt with a number of these companies in the past and I realize that most trucking companies in the Province are in compliance with the rules and regulation. First of all, it makes good business sense and, of course, the other part of it is public safety, safety equipment and drivers. However, it is important to have enforcement and monitoring mechanisms in place.

The minister's department not only facilitates public safety on our roads but also drinking water, restaurants, elevators, and other public inspections.

I hope when the Budget comes down tomorrow there will be no cuts to these services, and also there is enough work in the Budget tomorrow for these trucking companies to have their people back to work all around the Province. That is one of the big concerns that I have right now.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very important to enforce these safety rules. There should be no competitive advantage for one firm to operate unsafe vehicles and save money. It is very important that we have a safe level playing field for all commercial vehicles in the Province and truckers. Also, that applies to older vehicles which seem to have permission to run on the highways without inspections being done. I know that government was talking about reintroducing motor vehicle inspections after a certain age. I hope they do that. I know the minister did not say that right now but perhaps that is part of her plan to reintroduce the mandatary motor vehicle inspections (inaudible) in place before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated in this House over and over again that the Premier, in our view, has bungled the negotiations with the public sector unions. I owe him an apology, I believe. I have now come to realize that, in fact, as the Federation of Labour would say, the Premier actually had this planned all along. So, maybe it is not bungled. Why else would he unilaterally announce a wage freeze without consulting with the public sector unions and why else would he continuously negotiate in public and send warnings to the unions over the airwaves? Now on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has confirmed on the eve of a potential strike that there would be up to 1,500 jobs eliminated from the public service.

The question is, if the Premier was committed to avoiding a strike, how does he feel that the slashing of up to 1,500 jobs two days before a strike deadline will improve the chances of reaching an agreed to collective agreement a couple of days from now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, let me state categorically with respect to the question that the statement that 1,500 jobs will be slashed is inaccurate, completely untrue and erroneous. That is just not a correct statement.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is not seeing fit, at a time like this, to be constructive. As a matter of fact, it is unfortunate that he sees fit to stand over there and criticize - of all people, the Leader of the Opposition - together with all government members opposite who actually created this mess. It is overwhelmingly hypocritical and it is very shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, if he could, I would ask for his assistance at this particular point in time, at a very delicate point in time. He indicated, at one point - he must have forgotten - that he was going to cooperate with this government. If he remembers during the doctors' strike, that the Opposition, at that particular time - which was us - was very helpful and did nothing to inflame the situation during a very delicate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are trying to be exactly that, very helpful, because the Premier has made a mess of it, I guess. Maybe I should not have apologized. He really has bungled it completely.

Mr. Speaker, it is the media reports from officials of the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees who say they were briefed on the weekend, and they are in the media talking about, up to 1,500 jobs going to be slashed that they were told about. Mr. Speaker, the Premier suggests he does not consider that to be massive layoffs. That is his defense, that is not a massive number. He if does not consider it massive, Mr. Speaker, how is he going to explain it to any of those 1,500 who are going to find the impacts themselves?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

How is he going to explain it to any of the 1,500 who lose their jobs, or to any of the people who are going to be without the services they and their families are currently provided by those up to 1,500, the negative impacts that this kind of job loss will have in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also state, as the Premier said, that his numbers are absolutely inaccurate. On Saturday, I met with the presidents of NAPE and CUPE in reference to our Budget and I gave them the courtesy of a heads-up on numbers of impacts on layoffs that would occur as a result of the Budget. These numbers are very, very small compared to the number that the Leader of the Opposition is stating. If he has his facts, what he considers facts, he has them wrong. He should go back and try to get the right facts and come back to this House with true information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would gladly get the facts right. The fact, as we understand it, is that the Premier stated to NAPE President Mr. Leo Puddester, during the election, on an open line program, just on the eve of the election, that there would, in fact, be no layoffs, N O, zero, layoffs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That was taken for granted by the President of NAPE to be a statement that he would gladly tell to his memberships, that there would be no layoffs. As a matter of fact, the same person, the same president who is trying to negotiate a contract today, is saying in the public that he feels betrayed by the Premier, and the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is being described in the public by these same people as deceitful Danny.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the Finance Minister trying to explain what massive means. What is it that a massive layoff means to this Premier, that he forgot to tell anybody prior to the election, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition again reverts to name calling and personal attacks, but that is his style and I do not expect anything more. He also has a very short memory. I will tell him what massive layoffs mean.

Last year in the House of Assembly, one year ago, on March 24, 2003, when he was Premier of the Province, he was boasting, saying, the Budget that did lay off some 2,500 people, I do believe, if I am not mistaken, I am probably the only person on this side of the House who was in the Cabinet at that point in time.

He was proud of laying off 2,500 people. That is a massive layoff. We will not have any massive layoffs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is a topic that the Premier is really sensitive to because, of course, he has been caught telling one story before the election and a completely different one now, Mr. Speaker. That is the fact of the matter; everybody in the Province knows it. Everybody in the Province as well, Mr. Speaker, is looking for the new approach, not a rehash of what happened ten years ago, or fifteen years ago, or twenty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: The caucus itself awoke to news this morning that they heard for the first time, of up to 1,500 job losses. They campaigned on no job losses, Mr. Speaker. What advice is the Premier giving to his caucus members about going back to their constituents and explaining the difference between a promise of no job losses and 1,500 jobs that might disappear as of tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There will be no massive layoffs, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that again, but there will be massive debt, because that is what the hon. gentleman opposite has left in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will give you a cumulative record of massive layoffs when the Liberal government was in power.

In 1991, there were 2,500 job cuts. In 1992, there were 600 job cuts. In 1995, there were 475 job cuts. In 1996, there were 959 job cuts. In 1997: 468 teachers. In 1998: 225 teachers. In 1999: 182 teachers. In 2000: 100 teaching positions. In 2001: Hydro positions, health board positions, policemen. In 2002: 208 teaching positions. Those are massive cuts, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is really unfortunate that the Premier who got elected on a campaign of a new approach, with solutions for Newfoundland and Labrador, wants to live in the past. We did all those things and imagine how massive the debt might be today if we had not done exactly what you just described, being very responsible for fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you this, we are interested in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition now to complete his question. The supplementary should not need a preamble.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question basically is this: We do want to see a strike averted and avoided in a couple of days, if at all possible. Every time the Premier tries to so-call not negotiate in public, it only gets worse.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I am reluctant to cut the member off, but if the member doesn't put a question then the Speaker has no choice but to return the proceedings to the other side of the House. I will let him have five to six seconds to place his question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question being: Will the Premier actually get directly involved in some constructive fashion in the next forty-eight hours or so, so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador don't have to go through the hardship of an unnecessary strike, that if it does happen would have been caused by him and him alone, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of our Province that the government members and, I am certain, hon. members opposite do not want a strike in our Province under any circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have also made a public commitment that I will be available to the leaders of the unions any time, any place, any duration of time, anything that is necessary in order to achieve a settlement of this particular labour dispute.

As well, Mr. Speaker, they are meeting as we speak, there are negotiations going on now in a hotel in St. John's. If there is anything that needs to be done with regard to workforce adjustment, we are doing everything we can with regard to deployment and re-deployment of people in positions. I send a message out to the unions, that if there is anything they want to talk about with regard to the negotiations I am there to deal with any of these issues in detail. I will do everything I can to avoid a strike.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

When I asked the minister last week if he intended to cut 378 teaching positions in the Budget this week he said: Wait for the Budget. The Premier didn't wait for the Budget this morning when he talked about hundreds of people who will receive their layoffs within the next few weeks.

Again I ask the minister: How many teachers will he slash in tomorrow's Budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is obviously quite anxious. It is a legitimate question, but again he is simply premature. In approximately twenty-four hours from now the hon. member opposite and the public of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will have answers and explanations to not only this question but, indeed, any question that is related to the budgetary process.

I say to the hon. member: It is a fair question, however, twenty-four hours too early.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) born ahead of his time.

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

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't see how the members opposite can find the humour in laying off teachers tomorrow, like the Minister of Fisheries was talking about today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, again the minister says he cannot talk about layoffs but the Premier can.

My question is for the minister, again, with regard to teachers doing the jobs of student assistants during a strike. We know what the school board's position is on this. We know what the NLTA's position is. They will not do that work. What is the minister's position?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the question by the hon. member assumes and presumes that in approximately forty-eight to fifty-six to fifty-eight hours that we will have labour unrest in this Province. I say that is not the case, and members on this side of the House prefer to remain optimistic that this will not occur -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and in the unfortunate event that it should occur, or it does occur, we will respond appropriately to the types of questions that are being asked. I say to the hon. member opposite, let's remain optimistic and let's hope that we will not be in a situation to address the very nature of the question that is being asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I say in the event of a strike: Will the minister overrule the school boards or is he trying to force the NLTA on the streets like the Premier is trying to force NAPE and CUPE?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been some debate, Mr. Speaker, on this issue but members on this side of the House, we fully put faith and trust into the teachers of this Province to ensure that they will conduct themselves in the appropriate way. I wish to repeat, Mr. Speaker, the question is a hypothetical one in nature and we will wait and see and hope that we are not in the position to address the nature of the question asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the House why the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, for which he is responsible, is out doing riot training just days before a possible strike here? This is no coincidence. I ask the minister: Why is this Administration provoking a strike instead of preventing and preserving public safety?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I can tell all hon. members that this government is not provoking a strike. This government is making every effort to negotiate in good faith with NAPE and CUPE to try to reach a deal that is in the best interest of all the people of this Province.

With respect to RNC training; RNC training is ongoing and this government will make sure that RNC have the resources and the manpower it needs in order to train and have the best training that all police forces will need in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the figure in the public domain is that $50,000 indeed is being spent for new riot gear and thousands of dollars being spent on training personnel imported from Ontario to do the riot training. There was no money in this year's Budget for this training. This is new money.

I ask the minister: Where did you find the money, and who authorized it to be spent for this purpose at this time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I can tell the hon. member, while I am the Minister of Justice, there is going to be training for the police in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the members opposite, you do not have to look over here to decide who is the team that brings in the paddy wagons. We know where they sit on the government side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my final question for the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to keep their noise and their shouting down. It is impossible to hear the question.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, my final question: How can you, Minister, justify spending $50,000 on riot gear when we do not have proper cars for the RNC to drive and they are driving rental units? Who changed the priority to take the money that you did not have and now you are spending it on riot training?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: The hon. member and his government did not provide the resources for vehicles for the RNC in this Province. This government will rectify that situation.

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 Premier. On October 17, four days before the Provincial Election of October 21, the Premier said, and I quote: You have seen over the last couple of years that, in fact, there has been cuts in the public sector and cuts in teacher allocations in our Province under a Grimes' government, when Roger Grimes was Premier. So I do not stand for layoffs and cuts in the public service. This was said to the President of NAPE who, at the end of the exchange, said: I will take your word for it.

I want to ask the Premier: Is his word today the same as it was on October 17, four days before the election?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that I never stand for layoffs. I just simply do not. Nobody wants to create layoffs. Nobody wants to cause layoffs. Unfortunately, I can tell the hon. member, we have inherited a mess from the hon. members opposite, that we did not anticipate, and when we were briefed after we took over government, and understood what was in store for us, we commissioned an independent study, an independent audit, that had to be done. It was not, in fact, an audit. It was a study done by an independent firm, and we found out that we were facing billion dollar deficits. We were also facing a situation where even the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the Province would go bankrupt if we stayed on the same course. We had to do something, but I do not stand for layoffs; I do not like layoffs. Unfortunately, I have no choice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing the Premier also said at that time - I have said to your members right now - is that they have job security. We do not stand for layoffs.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier not admit that it is his flip-flop on this issue, and his speech on January 5, with unilateral action, that is forcing the public sector workers in this Province to take strike action tomorrow night or Wednesday night, when the time comes, that it is his flip-flop, the fact that he convinced people, back in October, that they had job security, that there would be no layoffs, that caused them to vote for him and support him then, and now he has turned his back on them and forced them into the streets? Will he not admit that it is his actions that have done that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they are not on the streets yet; we do not have a strike yet. We are working towards a resolution of this. We do not want to see a strike. I want to make that unequivocally clear.

The other thing is, when the statement was made on January 1, that was when we received and we had, in fact, had the final report, when we released it to the public and indicated to the public, the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we had an extremely serious financial situation on our hands. At that time, members of my Cabinet and members of my caucus, our government, felt it was incumbent upon us to tell the people of the Province, as soon as possible, what the financial situation was. We did, in fact, do that.

The other situation that had to be responded to was that, at that particular time, the unions were out saying they wanted a 21 per cent raise. We, in all conscience, could not allow that to go on (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - that the money was available for a 21 per cent raise. It simply was not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier not admit that the report that was released on January 5 really contained no new information, with the exception of the student loan, the student loan issue that we are debating here in this House the last couple of days, and that really what has happened here is that this Premier has chosen, for political reasons, to take on the public sector workers of this Province, to try and save some money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nobody knows better than the hon. gentleman for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that I do not want to take on the public sector workers. In fact, I took over his file when he went away as a Member of Parliament and acted for CUPE on his behalf, while he went away, to represent the people of the Province. He knows that I do not want to take on the public sector workers. I have, in fact, acted for CUPE. That is in fact the situation, Mr. Speaker.

As well, if we take the suggestion that was prepared by the consultant, the expert that was brought in by the unions, we would increase the taxes of the people in the Province. Is that what he wants? Does he want personal income taxes to go up? Does he want corporate taxes to go up? Does he want HST to go up? The people of the Province do not want an increase in their taxes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are on the Labrador Marine Service and they are for the Premier, simply because, Mr. Speaker, as I have said publicly and I maintain today, the Minister for Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, is in a position of conflict on this issue. After all, the minister was walking in to his new Cabinet position at the same time as he was espousing his belief that the Sir Robert Bond should operate out of Lewisporte and not Labrador.

Can the Premier tell me today if he and his Cabinet is prepared to overlook the minister's position and make the proper decision to leave the Sir Robert Bond operating at Cartwright?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of conflict of interest, I guess I am in as much a conflict of interest as the hon. member was when she was Parliamentary Secretary to the minister who made the decision to put the Sir Robert Bond in Cartwright in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: What cuts one way cuts another!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I guess, Mr. Speaker, I will be in a conflict of interest when I decide if we are going to put a dollar or two of capital road works in my district. Ministers are always potentially in conflict of interest, but that is silly and nonsense. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is getting on with making that decision as quickly as we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, again my question is for the Premier.

In a press release, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs said, we want to have an economic foundation to our decision. Can the Premier tell us what the economic loss will be to the people of Southern Labrador if he makes a move to put the ferry in Lewisporte?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that government has looked at all aspects of this question, unlike the last government, Mr. Speaker, when they made decisions that affected all of Newfoundland and Labrador, including Central Newfoundland and the rest of the Province. They had those reports, too, Mr. Speaker, but those reports are still sitting on the shelves of the Department of Transportation and Works and were never released. Mr. Speaker, that will not happen under the watch of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are having too much noise in the Chamber and it is impossible for me to hear the hon. member.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, my question is for the Premier. The Premier preaches a position of economic prudence. It is known that leaving the ferry operating out of Cartwright will be more economical for this government. I ask them to please release the report, make the decision in fairness to the people of Labrador and leave the boat in Cartwright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we will be releasing the report. The hon. member can have no fear about that. It is not going to sit on the shelves in the Department of Transportation from 1996 until 2004 and still not be released. That is not going to happen.

This government, Mr. Speaker, wants to make the best decision for the majority of people of Labrador. That includes constituents represented by the hon. Member for Labrador West; constituents represented by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains; and constituents represented by the hon. Member for Lake Melville. Government is committed to making the best decision for the greatest number of people in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

On September 23, in The Georgian newspaper, she expressed concern about the caseloads being unmanageable in the department. Now that she is minister, she has complete control over what hiring is done and what is not done. Does she still feel - using her words - that we cannot afford to stand by and see the system fail the children of this Province? Will she replace those positions and those that have become vacant since she came to office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the comments being referred to by the hon. member were not in relation to the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister's comments and her answer. I thought she was going to be like the rest and hide behind the budget or some report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: I say to the minister, the question that I am asking, Mr. Speaker, does refer to her department. I ask the minister: How long will it be before she can get the applications processed on time in her department? How many more of her employees will quit, leave on sick, annual leave and stress leave before she takes action?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment is in the process of rolling out a computerized pay system on the West Coast. We will continue to roll out this system, and all clients will be served in an efficient manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a final supplementary, I ask the minister, in comparison to the e-mail message that was sent to the employees of her department, and I quote: We have fallen so far behind that we need to make a concerted effort to catch up. Clients are being compromised from a financial perspective so we need to clear this up. I ask the minister: Will she stand in this House and tell us what success has been made to overcome this problem to date?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment that following the e-mail regarding a backlog of work, I have been assured by the officials in the department that the matter has been rectified.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

During Question Period we did have one comment that the Chair finds it necessary to intercede. A comment was made by the Leader of the Opposition. He used the words: deceitful Danny. While that, certainly, may have some expression that might have been used in some other places, it is totally inappropriate in the House of Assembly for these expressions to be used, and I would ask the hon. member if he would stand and retract that statement.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Respectful of your ruling, I retract the statement. I do not know how you are going to get it off the signs but I will retract it in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When the Chair asks that a comment be retracted, it has to be retracted without comment and without conditions. I would ask the hon. member if he would apologize to the House because, obviously, in that particular exchange there were some comments made afterwards that are entirely inappropriate.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I retract the statements and respect the ruling of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 12.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make reference to this. Basically, this Supplementary Supply Bill is for $1.4 million. It is within the vote of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, the original department. It is 100 per cent recoverable federal money, and the purpose of this is funding to post-secondary institutions here for training federally-sponsored students, and there is a full recovery.

I ask leave to have this bill introduced today.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister, I believe, thought we were under Notices of Motion, so we will put it under that category.

Are there any further notices of motion?

Answers to questions for which notice has been given?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if we could revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, to table a few reports today. If not, I could do it the next day, if agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, we could go back to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I table the annual reports of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, the C.A. Pippy Park Commission, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador profit distribution of $106 million from Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and the C.A. Pippy Park has also now completed its master plan which will soon be made available to the public and will set the direction for C.A. Pippy Park in the years to come.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is unfilled at the moment. I will let the hon. member know as soon as it is filled. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House on behalf of my constituents to present a petition for the Williams Harbour Road. I did present a petition similar to this about a week ago. I will read the prayer of the petition. It says:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents in the District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway from Red Bay to Cartwright is now complete with access roads to St. Lewis, Charlottetown and Pinsent Arm; and

WHEREAS there is over $100 million remaining in the Labrador Transportation Fund; and

WHEREAS the people of Williams Harbour have a sustainable community that will be open to many new opportunities and prosperity once connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS government must recognize the socio-economic impacts in regions and communities like Williams Harbour and not solely on the economic recovery analysis presented by consultants;

WHEREFORE the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should start building the road to Williams Harbour in 2004.

Mr. Speaker, when I presented this petition and spoke to it a week ago in the House of Assembly, I outlined for hon. members where Williams Harbour is - one of the smaller, more remote communities in Southern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this community is approximately twenty kilometres from a main highway system, and at the present time government is subsidizing air services to this particular community, subsidizing marine services to this particular community, which they are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to trade off for a road network. It was not possible to do this until this particular time, simply because it is only now that the highway has been completed into Pinsent Arm, allowing them to have access within twenty kilometres.

Mr. Speaker, we also know what the cost of this infrastructure is. It is very little cost, I say to the government. Actually no cost, Mr. Speaker, if you want to look at it, to the government, because the cost of the road itself would probably be less than $5 million. If you look at what it has cost to build all the other roads into the other communities in Labrador, you want to take an averaging factor, you are looking at probably around $5 million, maybe even less, to have this particular road completed into Williams Harbour. If you look at the report that was tabled by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board a couple of days ago with regard to the Labrador Transportation Initative Fund, Mr. Speaker, we see that fund in the past year earned an investment income of over $4 million.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about enough money accruing on the fund right now, the Labrador fund, belonging to the people of Labrador, the people of Williams Harbour and all the rest of the communities in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We are seeing an investment accruing in that fund that will allow us to move forward with this infrastructure, so it is no longer a decision -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is not an issue of having to take funds out of the Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury. It is an issue of: Is this government willing to spend the Labrador fund in the priority areas that Labradorians identify? Because the Combined Councils of Labrador, at their last AGM, approved a motion supporting this road network for the community of Williams Harbour, unanimous, amongst all communities in Labrador. So, I say to the minister and I say to his government, do the right thing, do the honourable thing, and provide the infrastructure and the funding to build this road into Williams Harbour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is my third petition on behalf of the Bay d'Espoir region to see improvements and expansions to the Bay d'Espoir Medical Clinic located in St. Alban's. I will read the prayer again:

WHEREAS there is a definite need for improvements and expansions to the Bay d'Espoir Medical Clinic located in St. Alban's; and

WHEREAS work on this facility has been announced and tendered by the previous government but work has since been put on hold by the current government;

THEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to see this very important work on this health care facility proceed without further delay.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here in this House representing that part of my district since 1996, and I think this is the first time that I have seen every community in the Bay d'Espoir region unanimously supporting this particular facility to be upgraded. As a said, I think in one of the other petitions that I presented on this here, many, many times you see community rivalry where one community does not want to see it go in their community but go somewhere else. This is not the case here. Everybody in that particular region knows the advantage of having the improvements made to this clinic is very, very important to the people in the Bay d'Espoir region. We are so far removed from the mainstream, like in the Bay d'Espoir area. It takes about two-and-a-half hours to get there. This clinic is in need of much, much improvement and expansion and I would hope that come tomorrow this could be one of the projects that would be approved for the people in the Bay d'Espoir region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself in to a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

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

Committee of the Whole

"An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 1)

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Should clause 11 carry?

The hon. the minister of Grand Falls-Buchans - the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really appreciate the fact that you called me the minister for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an amendment to clause 11 of the bill, section 14(4). I perhaps should say that section 14.4(1) currently reads: that there shall be three directors on the board of directors of the corporation. The directors of the board shall be, by virtue of their positions: deputy minister of the department, who shall be the chairperson of the board; Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance, and the Secretary of Treasury Board. The board shall not be disabled from acting, by any reason, of temporary vacancy in its numbers. The board shall exercise all of the powers and duties of the corporation, and shall administer and manage the business of the corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace district, that clause 11 of Bill 1 be amended, in proposed section 14.4(2) as follows: by adding (d) president of the federation of students or their designate, (e) a representative from post-secondary institutions.

Mr. Chairman, my reason for proposing this amendment is, as it reads now the current bill does not have any provision for student -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, maybe the Chair should determine whether the amendment is in order first.

MS THISTLE: Fine, thank you.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Chair that the amendment is in order.

I recognize the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Now that we have determined that the amendment is in order, I would like to speak to that amendment.

Listed in their bill was representation internally from government officials, but not from student representation. We all know, Mr. Chairman, that this bill today is all about whom? It is about students in our Province. Despite the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board accepting the phony report by Michael Gourley that our administration had, in fact, proper financial figures, it was spot on.

What we are doing here today, Mr. Chairman, is passing a bill in haste, for one reason. That reason is to inflate the deficit so the deficit will be what you want it to be by March 30. In effect, this timing has no significance for the students of our Province. We are passing this bill today because it has to be done at some point.

I will read from the Minister of Education's news release dated March 22. He says, "It is good news for students and taxpayers..." Is this good news for taxpayers that we have to add this to our books? We are here today because we have no choice in the matter. We have no choice. We have to accept the student loan portfolio because the banks are getting out of the business. The actual artificial date of March 30 has no relevance. Students will not be affected one way or the other if this bill is passed today, tomorrow, April 1 or beyond. They still have to pay back the money, Mr. Chairman.

Now, getting back to the amendment at hand. The amendment at hand asks for student representation on this board. The Student Loan Corporation is made up of officials from government. Some would say: What place is there for a student on this board? Our current student aid appeals committee has the (inaudible) of the Canadian Federation of Students on it. The last revamp of our student loan program, which occurred in August, 2002, happened because students came to government - the previous administration - and told us the concerns that they had. Are you going to set up a board that is basically about students in this Province, students and their loans, all policies connected to student loan pay backs - wouldn't it seem honourable and the right thing to do to include student representation? That can be at the board's choice. I am just recommending that somebody from the Federation of Students be included or the post-secondary education body itself.

When you look at the Canadian Federation of Students, they bring with them expertise. Whenever a recommendation was made on their behalf to the former administration they came to us with their homework done. They have available to them national organization and the expertise that comes with it.

I ask this new government, who is harping on a new approach, wouldn't that new approach include the representation of a student? I cannot understand, for the life of me, I see the amendments that have come forward today from Bill 1, and you have not even looked at this amendment or included it in your bill. I can't believe it, but, then again, why should I be surprised. In the first 100 days or your office you gutted Youth and Post-Secondary Education. That department is gone. Why would you want student representation? They might tell you something that needs to be done with student loans, but you don't want to hear that.

Here you are saying that as a legal entity the Student Loan Corporation will become the sole owner, the dispenser and the collector of all provincial student loans. You have not given to the students what your internal operation will be for actual collection of default loans, loans that are in arrears. Students don't have that information.

My colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, brought forward a very important amendment last week. These are the kinds of issues that students want to discuss. They want to know that their loan won't be negatively impacted by us, as a Province, taking over that portfolio from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. What you have effectively done, you have shut out the users of the system, the students themselves. I don't know how you can stand in your places today and want quick passage of this bill without having student representation.

The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stood in his place on March 22 in this House and he said that students have lobbied for this integration to take place, and that could be no further from the truth. I spoke on a couple of occasions in recent days to the President of the Canadian Federation of Students and they told me that they did not have any lobbying or any consultation. They were present at your media release, and that was it.

As a new government that is trying to come across to the general population as having a new approach and a new way of doing business, let me tell you, for the people of this Province who are watching this telecast this afternoon, you want to take over $220 million of a student loan portfolio, have it run by bureaucrats within government and let students know nothing. They won't be part of any policy changes, any improvements or any affect it is going to have on student in this Province. It will be run by bureaucrats and they will report to the minister. Now, that, in my opinion, is a closed shop on the items that are very important to students in this Province.

I don't know how you could come across and deny students' rights of being on this Student Loan Corporation. If I were a student in this Province today I would demand it, I would be marching up to your office this afternoon and saying: Mr. Minister, how can you put $220 million on the taxpayers of this Province without having representation from the students, the user in this Province? I do not know how you can actually stand here - you brought this bill to the House. You did not deny the reasons. This side of the House over here said, you are only rushing it through to inflate a deficit figure. You did not stand - not one of you - in your place and deny that was not the case.

Here today is a most important aspect of it, having student representation, and you are not even going to entertain a request for that, from students right around this Province. You are going to say: Do as I say. Basically, the heavy hand of government wants no input from students, no input whatsoever. Just do what I say.

You have not come out with any kind of information for students that is going to give them any assurance that you will be working in their best interests. In fact, you do not even care. You started out when you gutted the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. What is coming next, in the Budget tomorrow, I would ask the Minister of Education?

You are saying here in your news release: It is good news for students and taxpayers. Can you imagine? As government, we will be able to provide better service while improving the delivery of debt management tools.

What, in your opinion, is debt management tools? Is the collecting going to happen right here in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or are you going to have loan sharks on the mainland who are going to call up our students and threaten them? Every day of the week I am getting calls from my constituents and all over the Province talking about the heavy hand of collectors who are currently calling people who are behind in their student loans.

Now, you have not shared that information with any of the students in our Province. So, are the bureaucrats within government going to be collectors as well? Are you going to probably deny someone their driver's licence? Are you going to try to tap it on source? Are you going to deny people their drivers' licences, or moose licences, or any services that government presently provide?

This is more of a reason why we need students on this board, because all you are going to do is have a group of bureaucrats reporting to the minister with no thought as to student representation at all on this board.

You know right now that the federal government has powers to intercede and attach people's income tax refunds. What is it you are not telling students today, Mr. Minister? What is it you are not telling students? Are you going to use that same power within our provincial government to intercede and attach any kind of refunds of monies going to students in this Province? Are you going to -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: If I could just have about thirty seconds, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I sit down today, I want to ask the Minister of Education - this is an important amendment. There is no reason to leave students out of this equation. There is every reason to include them, and if you believe in fairness and balance and a new approach, I ask you to include this amendment and include students on that board.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, I was not going to get up but I feel compelled after listening to the member and the absolute dribble that I have just listened to. First of all, for distinction, we are not implementing a board or putting a board together today. What we are putting in place is a Crown corporation, much like a corporation enacted by a piece of legislation in this House, like Hydro Corporation, for example, the Housing Corporation, the Liquor Corporation. To say that students are not going to be involved, let me tell the member this: This is a corporation that will deal with financial transactions. It does not set student aid policy or policy for government. The government does that, in consultation with students I might add.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Chair, let me say this: How is it that the member can stand up and say that we are shutting students out when she knows - she was the Minister of Post-Secondary and advanced studies - that there is student representation on an appeal board already, so any issues that will arise from this corporation that may be grieved or considered of a grievous nature, where will they be or where will they end up? They will end up before an appeal board where a student representative already sits.

Secondly, on that point, how can the member who used to be the former minister say that this government is ignoring students altogether when it is our intention, this minister, on the direction provided by him and the direction provided by the Premier, where we will actually be increasing student representation on the Board of Regents at Memorial, for example, giving them a larger say?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Giving students a larger say. Now, let me say this, Mr Chair. I know what it is like to pay back a student loan. When I first got elected in this House in 1993, I was, I think, a year-and-a-half into a nine-and-a-half year payback plan. I borrowed $26,000 and I paid pack $36,000 or $37,000 overall, so I understand clearly what it is like to have a big debt on your head when you are just starting out in life, when you are trying to move ahead, if you have just been married or you are just trying to get your first house, your first car, trying to establish your credit rating, all of those things; but I say to the members opposite, in all good conscience and honesty, with respect to the change that we are making with this bill today, that government will be a far better arbiter and manager of the student loan portfolio than CIBC or Toronto-Dominion or the Bank of Nova Scotia ever could or would be, and I believe that students understand and recognize that fact as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The member goes on to impute motives on government, saying that we do not care; we gutted the post-secondary education department. The only thing that we gutted was a view and a management to have whoever was in government, to have them in Cabinet. We took a responsible approach, the Premier took a responsible approach, reduced the size of Cabinet, to send a direction and a signal to everybody, but what else was gutted? There is still a deputy minister. The divisions associated with post-secondary are still involved. The staff that you worked with are still there, member, so what is gutted? The only thing that is gutted is an approach that would see everybody in the Cabinet leading up to an election. What we see now is a responsible approach in how this government plans to manage the affairs of the Province. That is what is at stake here.

The member said that we are rushing this bill through with haste, that it does not matter to a student today if we pass it today, or a student tomorrow, and that nobody on this side disagreed with why we were doing it, because we want to inflate the financial figures for this year.

Now look, first of all, that is not true. It may be your opinion and I defend your right to share it or to have it or to put it forward, but the fact of the matter is this: The government before us, who now sit in opposition, were advised in June of 2003 that this measure would have to be taken. In June of 2003. The election was not called until October, 2003. Why didn't the government of the day make that known? That is a question that they have failed to answer. Did they make it known in July or in August or in September? Did they make it known during the election? No, none of that. In the member's point of view she said, what is it? This is not good news for taxpayers. I suppose it is not good news for taxpayers.

There is, as my colleague would say, an insight into the obvious. The fact of the matter is, the reason why we are moving towards it, and the reason why we are doing it immediately, is because we feel that it is necessary to be done. Why wait? The fact of the matter is, if this passes today, that on the first of April that if one student or 100 students or 1,000 students or 10,000 students - beginning in April - send in their student aid application, then by gollies we will have a corporation in place the first of April to deal with it, when the CIBC have completed abdicated their responsibility on the thirty-first of March.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: So, if you want to play with numbers or you want to accuse us of playing with them, let's be clear. Yes, we are going to assume $220 million on a loan portfolio. Fifty-five million is really what is going to be impacted in this year's Budget, and if you want to get on a pedestal and say that we are doing it because of that, and that your numbers would look better next year, be my guest and say it, but the fact of the matter is, come April 1, this government is committed to having a corporation in place that will serve the interests of the people that we are trying to serve, which is the students themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I take it from what the previous speaker said, he would be very happy if we passed this bill on April 1, because then we would have a corporation on April 1 that could do just the thing that the speaker, the Government House Leader, wants us to do. So, on April 1, if a student comes and files his application

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to clarify it for you?

A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HARRIS: - if a student comes and files his application, the Minister of Education can take it and say: we have a corporation passed today.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is clear that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi needs some clarification. I think Hansard will bear out to what I said, that no matter what you want to say in terms of the financial numbers, on April 1, because we pass this bill today - CIBC are getting out of the loan business on March 31. That is the result of this bill, why we are hoping to pass it today, and it will be ready for April 1. That is the point that I make.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think there was a similar argument about when Confederation took place, whether it took place one minute before midnight on March 31 or one minute after midnight on April 1.

Mr. Chairman, if what the government really wants is an operating corporation on April 1, we can certainly pass this bill on April 1, but I know they want it passed today. I do know that they want it passed before the end of this year because that $55 million, which we talked about before - the $55 million which is an allowance for doubtful accounts, is the technical terms, Mr. Chairman - $55 million of projected defaulting student loan debt that this government is taking over as part of that portfolio.

We seen the other day, Mr. Chairman, that a good portion of that, almost 52 per cent of that, results from student loan debt from the private college system that we have been so critical of in terms of what it does, in terms of taking large amounts of money from students for tuition and leaving them with very significant debts, which so many of them are unable to pay off because of the enormous debt they have compared to the amount of money that they are able to make, but that is not the point I am rising to make today, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has proposed that the Canadian Federation of Students have a representative on the board here. I want to talk about the Canadian Federation of Students. They played a very significant role over the last, perhaps, ten years in this Province in fighting for the needs of students, in fighting against a trend that has occurred across this country, from one end of the country to the other, but also, and significantly here, Mr. Chairman, where we have fewer opportunities for students graduating to get jobs and pay off student loans. We have seen the student loan debt rise by over 300 per cent from 1989, when it was approximately $8,000 for a student leaving a four year university program with carrying a debt load of something in the order, on the average, of $8,000. That is now well over $25,000, Mr. Chairman, and that happened in a fairly short period of time.

The Canadian Federation of Students fought very hard under a series of leaders who challenged this government's assumptions about student aid; who fought minister after Minister of Education to try and change the student loan program to a needs based grants program to try and get better programs for remission of student aid. The previous government introduced a Student Aid Loans Remission Program that was so ineffective that hardly anybody qualified for it and hardly anybody was able to take advantage of it.

There were some changes made, I will have to say, in the last year or so of the previous government, to make things a little bit easier in terms of student loan remissions but still not effective, Mr. Chairman, and still not where we want it to be. There may be a streamline system to come into place as a result of this new system, but what I wonder, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the same kind of flexibility is going to be there in terms of policy? Is this government going to have any ability to bring about changes that may be desirable for students in this Province and the circumstances of students of this Province, that they will not be able to implement because they are tied to this system with the other government? Perhaps the minister can respond to that because that could be a very significant and important reason to have student representation on this board.

Mr. Chairman, I know the point made by the previous speaker, that this is not a policy making board. This is not a - it is a Crown corporation but not a corporation that makes policy and carries out various alternatives and can make decisions as to how the Student Aid Program is going to be designed. I do not think that is an (inaudible) to this corporation. I think this corporation is essentially a technical corporation that passes out money in accordance with regulations passed by government.

If government is unwilling, and I gather they are, to include a student along with the three deputy ministers, because of the nature of the corporation, can the minister tell us where the student input is going to come from? Where is the student input going to come from in terms of policy? What mechanisms are going to be in place? What boards? What committees? What detailed consultation is there going to be with the students of this Province through their representatives on the Canadian Federation of Students? They have done a terrific job. They have been terrific advocates. They are ceaseless in their work on this, and they have brought a lot to the table in terms of understanding the impact of student aid policies on students. They have been very involved in appeals. They have been very involved in advocacy on behalf of students who have run (inaudible) the policies of the Student Aid Division. What I want to know is if the government is saying no to this amendment, where is there going to be the input that is desirable and needed from the students of this Province who are most affected, and particularly the representatives in the Canadian Federation of Students? I wonder if the minister can address that problem?

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to take a few moments, if I might, to respond to this amendment that has been put forward, and I trust it will not be dribble, as has been suggested of another member here. I hope I can add something to the debate. The amendment, as I understand it, is ruled to be in order, so I would think it sufficient to comment on it.

I think it is a good amendment, and I think so for a number of reasons. I would preface my remarks by saying, just because you have not done something in the past does not take away the need to decide if we ought to do it on a go-forward basis. We have to be open, we have to be accepting, that there can be changes as we move forward. Yes, we have all kinds of boards and corporate bodies, financial boards, in our system that administer financial detail and administration, but that is not what we have here. We have a very particular corporation here that deals with a very particular subject, which is student loans, and how they are going to be repaid, collected and so on.

It goes beyond being just a policy decision on, are we going to have student loans? We are into the back end of it, in a lot of ways here, as to how we are going to it get back, what our collection procedure is going to be. To take nothing away from bureaucrats or professional financial account managers who look after this stuff, there is nobody better to put advice into the system, as well, than the very people affected by it, and that is the student. That is why subsection (d) is being suggested here as an amendment.

We talk about doing what is right for the students; we talk about having the students' input. We ran into a situation here last week where there was an amendment proposed that could have affected potentially every student loan in the Province, and the students did not indeed know about it. They did not know about it. It was picked up on, and an appropriate change was made to address it. Now, I am not suggesting that this amendment here is of the same magnitude, but it is certainly important. How can we have a student corporation, as is being created here, without letting the people who are most impacted by it - for example, students - have some say at the board table? This goes beyond having an advisory group that might tell you something, if and when the government or this corporation ever goes out and asks them. This is allowing the very people most impacted to be at the board table when the decisions are made, to have some input.

We talked in our Throne Speech about education being the fuel of the economy. Well education, I believe, is also one of the major tenets of democracy, in addition to freedom and some others. What is wrong with having the very people who are impacted here siting on this board? We are here as an Opposition, not to oppose for the sake of opposing but to suggest constructive ideas that might improve a piece of legislation. I think that is exactly what we are doing here.

The government is not the possessor of all knowledge and wisdom, nor the people who are going to sit on this board - the three bureaucrats - the Deputy Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Finance, and the Secretary to Treasury Board. In fact, they were probably all students at one time, whoever they end up being, but they are probably long out of touch with the needs of students, vis-à-vis a student himself or herself. That is why there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the amendment.

The purpose of subsection (e) here is, in addition to the students, who again has most contact with the students other than the principals of the post-secondary institutions such as CONA and Memorial University? Why should there not be a representative there? They are the persons who are in day-to-day contact with the administration. You always heard of looking at things in the cold day logical light of second thought. Well, there is nothing wrong here with having a sober second thought sit on the board when these decisions are being made.

I speak in favour of the motion. I think it is indeed a very good motion and we cannot - because we in the past have had all kinds of Crown corporations that might deal with anything from loans to fishermen to insurance to fishermen to farm loans to whatever, this is a different situation. One of the most principled, most detailed and important concerns we have is student loans in this Province, and there is nothing wrong with having the students involved in its administration.

The only comment I would make off the topic somewhat is, it is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected here, vis-à-vis the timing of this bill again, and I will not belabour the point, is that the past Administration, back in August, 2003, were advised that CIBC was getting out of the business - getting out of the business back in August, 2003. The fact is that CIBC told the former Administration, you have to decide by February when you are taking this over, because we are definitely out of it - and what your plans are. That was all that was told by CIBC to the former Administration. Decide by February where you want to go.

This new Administration decided before February that where we want to go is, we want to have our own corporation, as outlined in Bill 1 here, and we are going to do it by March 31. I do not think there is anything that anyone in government can show us whereby CIBC insisted that this new corporation has to be incorporated as of and before April 1, 2004. If there is any information to the contrary, I would certainly appreciate seeing it in that regard. Because that does not exist, I would submit, that is why some people are dubious about why the government is adamant that this be done before this fiscal year ends.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to Clause 11?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Defeated.

Shall clause 11 carry?

On motion, clause 11 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 16.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Clause 16 that we are about to discuss and debate, perhaps to some extent, is really the essence of the discussion and the debate that was held during the last parliamentary day. It was an interesting debate and the Leader of the Opposition participated, as did the Opposition House Leader, as did the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and as did some members on this side of the House, on the government side, Mr. Chairman.

What was interesting about the debate is that it gave, I think, all the people of the Province, Mr. Chairman, the reassurance that any section or any amendment that was being put forward was, obviously, ultimately in the interests of our students. Mr. Chairman, if there was any question or any doubt as to what was being proposed as being in the students' best interests, obviously it was necessary. We all agreed, Mr. Chairman, members on both sides of this House, that if there was any question or doubt or uncertainty as to what ultimately would be in the best interests of the students of this Province that that was not good enough. That was essentially the nature of the debate.

I thank members opposite for their participation in that debate, because as a result of what was discussed Thursday past, Mr. Chairman, it was necessary to make some changes that reflected the certainty and the reassurance that perhaps the students of this Province were seeking. As a result of the debate, and this information has been shared with members opposite, we propose at this time that Clause 16 of the bill, which is obviously the clause which is now being debated -

MR. E. BYRNE: You circulated that to members beforehand, I understand.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That particular section has been circulated. I know the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vide have seen what is being proposed and, it is my understanding, agree with the spirit and the wording of the proposed amendment.

For the record Mr. Chairman has asked me to read this in, and I will do this at this time.

Section 17.1 of Clause 16, "The terms and conditions of a student loan assigned to the corporation on or before April 1, 2004 may, notwithstanding any term or condition of a student loan agreement applicable to that student loan, be established or varied in accordance with the regulations to facilitate administrative integration."

Section 17.1.1(1) "Where the total amount required to be paid under the borrower's loans administered under the integration agreement has increased as a result of a change to the terms and conditions of those loans to facilitate administrative integration, the corporation shall upon repayment in full of those loans refund to the borrower the amount of the increase."

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, that reflects, essentially, the concerns that were raised during the last parliamentary day.

(2) "Notwithstanding subsection 19.1(2), a borrower may take an action against the corporation to recover a refund under subsection (1)."

Then we have the Definitions section, Mr. Chairman, section 17.1.2 "In sections 17.1 and 17.1.1..." it defines administrative integration to mean "‘administrative integration' as defined in the integration agreement;" and (b) "‘integration agreement' means the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Agreement for the Administrative Integration of the Canada Student Loans Programs and the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Financial Assistance Program."

(2) "Clause 16 of the Bill is amended by deleting the words ‘to pay' from the proposed subsection 17.4(1)."

(3) "Clause 16 of the Bill is amended by adding after the proposed subsection 17.4(3) the following as subsection (4) and by renumbering the remaining subsections: (4) Where a student loan is assigned to the corporation by a lender, the corporation has the right to collect from the borrower of that student loan the total amount required to be paid by the borrower under the terms of the student loan agreement, as amended by this Act, notwithstanding a payment made by the Crown under an agreement with the lender."

(4) "Clause 16 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after the word and brackets, ‘(Canada)' in the proposed subsection 17.4(5) the words, comma and figures ‘or under the Income Tax Act, 2000'."

Mr. Chairman, again the protection that was referred to in the debate of the previous parliamentary evening, and the security that was referenced and was being sought, I would propose is found in the rewording of this amendment. As I have indicated just a few moments ago, this wording has been shared with members opposite and they, along with us, now agree that the security and the protection and the lack of doubt is no longer here, and if, in fact, any question were being raised or any issue being raised that ultimately could negatively impact upon a student in terms of a change in the provisions or conditions of a loan, that is rectified by the improved wording of this section.

Mr. Chairman, what we experienced, I would suggest, several days ago, as referenced in this new wording, deals with that very factor. Again, I suppose, it is a commentary on what value there is very often when members of this hon. House, regardless of either side, participate in a debate to improve legislation to ensure that the interests for whom the statute is designed, the beneficiaries of the statute, to ensure that those particular interests are protected and preserved.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chairperson rules that the amendment to clause 16, as put forward by the Minister of Education, is in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak to the amendment and, in particular, to the changes that have been brought in to recognize that any changes that might result from having to align these two agreements, the matter that was raised on Thursday by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and spoken to by me, was a very important point that has been resolved favourably in that the minister's amendment meets that concern.

We were very concerned, Mr. Chairman. I understand the wording sounds a little stilted but, in fact, if they are stuck with amending an agreement that might work out to the disadvantage of individuals, you may not know that for some time, but the obvious result of the amendment is that if the effect of a change is that students end up paying more, that would be rectified. I am pleased that the minister has listened to the debate and the comments and worked with this side of the House in achieving an amendment that meets the concerns that were raised. That is a good example, as has been said, of how Parliaments should work and how the House of Assembly should work on questions such as this.

I just want to add those comments to the debate with respect to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Education to the legislation before us. I think we are not doing all amendments on clause 16 first, are we? We can deal with this one first?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: All right, I will deal with my amendment a little later, which will come up.

This is very important, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile for identifying this as an issue last week, and for raising it. As he said, and as we said on Thursday, although the student leadership - we are certainly supportive of the move to join the two systems so that we can have one administration, the student leadership was certainly not aware of the potential caused by leaving it open for any changes to, in fact, result in increased costs to students. Happily, that has been changed.

We still do have the concern, Mr. Chairman - and I hope it will be raised, spoken to, or addressed by the minister in the debate - that when you put these two systems together and you put these loans together and you put these two operations together, we will have one system and it will be streamlined.

My question remains: Will it be rigid, because we must comply with the federal student loan plan? Will there remain flexibility for this government to approach student loans and student aid in this Province in a manner that may be different from what the federal government would have in other provinces, in other places where they may not share the same concerns that we have about how student loans ought to be managed, what policies ought to be addressed, what kind of remission programs there ought to be, how they ought to be administered and those kinds of things? I hope that if we are going down this road, Mr. Chairman, we will not find out in a year's time that the kind of changes that might be promoted by students, for example, and even be accepted by government as being necessary, that we might find out: oh, no, we can't do that. We cannot do that because we are tied to an agreement with the Government of Canada that does not allow us to do that.

I have not seen this agreement, Mr. Chairman. The agreement has not been tabled here in the House. We know it is going to go into effect on the first of April, but we do not know whether the hands of this government and future governments are going to be tied by an agreement with the Government of Canada to have a single administration. So, I would like to have that question addressed. I think it is a very important question. We do not have it before us so I am not going to try and poke holes in something that we have not seen, but when this party was on this side of the House there was a concern about seeing the documents. Remember that, Mr. Chairman? We want to see the documents. We wanted to see what was in the agreements about Voisey's Bay before we could take a position on it.

Mr. Chairman, I am not asking that we hold up this debate until we have that agreement analyzed but I would like the minister to comment on that point. Are we going into a situation where the agreement with the Government of Canada on the Canada Student Loan - the joint administration of the Canada Student Loan Program and the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan Program, are we going into a situation where our own flexibility is going to be curtailed and where policies are not able to change because the Government of Canada is not willing to accede to the kind of changes that our students might want and need, and even members of this government might want to accede to? Can we address that?

I certainly support the amendment, and as I said, I repeat my thanks to the minister and members opposite for being cooperative in refashioning the amendment so that in fact it does not cause increased costs to students while at the same time accomplishing the objective of having a joint system.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment as put forward by the Minister of Education to clause 16, Bill 1?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 16, as amended?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, there is another amendment to (inaudible).

CHAIR: I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we are going to deal with the amendment as put forward by the Minister of Education. We will not be passing the bill. We will be passing the amendment. We will be dealing with your amendment next and then we will vote on that separately.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman (inaudible) pass the amendment and then, I believe, I heard Your Honour say: Is clause 16, as amended, passed? In fact, there is another amendment to clause 16. As I understood, we were just voting on whether or not clause 16, as amended, will pass. I do not know if that vote was completed. If it has been, perhaps we should revert to clause 16 so that my amendment can, in fact, be put.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member has an amendment. It is clause 16 subclause 17.7(3), I believe it is. So if we can move to that, Mr. Chairman, then we can pass clause 16 in its entirety.

CHAIR: The Chair has had a chance to look at the amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and it is certainly in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I may just read the amendment into the record. I am moving that clause 16 be amended by adding to the end of proposed subclause 17.7(3) the words, "unless the corporation so directs."

That has the effect, Mr. Chairman, of allowing for student loans - it has no reasonable prospect of collecting those loans. Loans that have, in fact, been written off by Treasury Board because they are not collectible, to actually be wiped out. It is a fine distinction, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is an important one that has to be made.

In debate on this legislation we talked about the effect of students loans on students who - as a result of having this student loan debt - become virtually unemployable. We have seen examples of that. In fact, it was brought to my attention, and the Member for St. John's Centre's attention most recently by officials of the Department of Human Resources and Employment where student loan debt was recognized as a significant barrier to employment for young people who are in receipt of social assistance and who are trying to get jobs. In fact, it was identified as student loan debt from the private colleges which only support my concern that one of the things we are doing wrong in our student loan program and our education policy is failing to adequately support the College of the North Atlantic and the university - but primarily, on this issue, the College of the North Atlantic - by decreasing budgets by $25 million over the last ten years down from $87 million to $62 million per year so that programs can be provided to students who need them; good quality programs at a reasonable cost; in fact the tuition costs being, in many case, one-half, one-third or one-quarter of what the private institutions are charging.

One of the consequences is that we have student loan debts on students who do not have jobs, who are unable to pay it, and there has to be some mechanism, Mr. Chair. We do know that, in the last seven or eight years, the Government of Canada changed the Bankruptcy Act. They changed the Bankruptcy Act so that if somebody is in that dire circumstance where they cannot pay any of their bills, let alone their student loan debt, they can have all their debts wiped out. All their debts can be wiped out under bankruptcy legislation, except for their student loan debt. Now, why the Government of Canada chose to do that is beyond me. I imagine there may have been a few bad examples of somebody going to medical school or something and racking up $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 or $80,000 debt trying to declare bankruptcy and go and get a $100,000 a year job the next year. A few bad examples that may have been bandied about long enough and hard enough in the Parliament of Canada to convince the Government of Canada to change the bankruptcy legislation so that student loan debt cannot be wiped, but that is a circumstance that we have right now. We do not have to like it, but at the moment that is the law of Canada. So we have to do something, if we can, to relieve students of this obligation where there is no reasonable prospect of payment. Unless the power is there, no matter what the Minister of Education wants to do, no matter what the Government House Leader wants to do, no matter what even the Minister of Finance wants to do, the debt cannot be relieved.

I have had examples, Mr. Chair, and I remember talking to previous ministers, for example, in charge of the Department of Human Resources or social assistance, whatever it was called in those days, when somebody had an overpayment, even going back fifteen or twenty years, from social assistance, and somebody comes back on the system and they find out that there is an overpayment that is fifteen or eighteen years old, the minister could not waive the obligation. The minister could not waive the obligation and they had to take it out of the social assistance the person was receiving today, because of some overpayment that was generated, perhaps even by mistake, many years ago. Without the power to actually write off the debt, the minister was told: Minister, you do not have the authority to do that. You cannot do it.

So, we have to provide for an opportunity, at least, for debts to be written off. Now, it says the corporation so directs. I hope the minister will be in a position to influence the corporation. We could have said, I suppose, the minister so directs - it might have been easier - but at least the power is there and I am sure the minister, being the minister responsible for the corporation, would certainly be in a position to do that.

I would want, Mr. Chair, having raised this point today and gone to the extent of having an amendment to provide this power there, to hear that this government takes seriously the notion that there are many students out there whose debts, although obviously student loan debts are an obligation and a burden to anybody who has them, I would encourage the government to look into its programs. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, her department may be able to identify people who are in such dire circumstances that their student loan obligation is there preventing them from getting into the workforce, preventing them from moving on in life, and that some mechanism may be able to be brought forward to at least allow them to be in a situation where they can, somehow or other, see their way, see some light at the end of the tunnel, and perhaps be able to get on with their life, get a job, take advantage of a program that might be offered by government, and get into the workforce.

I think it is an important amendment. It is an empowering amendment, but it is going to require some action on the part of government to ensure that this kind of amendment can actually work for people.

Having said that, I believe there is going to be support from the other side for that amendment and I hope the minister will speak to it and acknowledge that support. Hopefully, we will pass that amendment this afternoon.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I find myself, Mr. Chairman, in the unusual position of not necessarily agreeing with everything that my friend opposite has said, but in fact I do agree with his amendment that he has put forward.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that some of the proposed amendment as just discussed was as a result of some discussion that he had with the Opposition House Leader as well. Nevertheless, we have had an opportunity to assess the implications of the amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi and, as indicated, and in response to his last point, we on the government side of the House will accept the amendment as presented and we would now ask that we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment, as put forward by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to clause 16?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 16, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?

The hon. the Minister for Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This clause 19 will, in fact, bring a close, presumably, to the amending sections of Bill 1. This has already been discussed at some length by members on both sides of the Chamber. Essentially what it does, it changes the date from the thirtieth to the twenty-ninth.

There is one point that I would like to make on this, because really it has not been made and I think it is worthy of some note. Yes, it is true that the CIBC put this Province on notice that it was no longer in the student loan business. Obviously, the Province then took steps to seek alternative ways to ensure that there was student loan business being carried out on behalf of the students of this Province; but, Mr. Chairman, the reason why - and I do not know if it has really been fully disclosed at this point - the end of March was a critical date, was that approximately eight months ago, Mr. Chairman, it was necessary for both parties to this arrangement, namely the CIBC and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to extend -

MR. E. BYRNE: Eight months ago?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - approximately eight months ago, to extend the agreement. There was an extension agreement signed approximately eight months ago, that expired on 31 March 2004. Since that time there was no effort by either party, whether it were CIBC or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to extend that agreement. It was not extended in January, it was not extended in November past, it was not extended in February. So, in the absence of an amendment, in the absence of an amendment to the extension agreement, the legal obligation was such, Mr. Chairman, that all parties had to abide by the newly arrived at extension date of March 31, 2004. Mr. Chairman, it is as simple as that.

Hear we are today, Mr. Chairman, on March 29. Obviously the parties need time to do the bookkeeping, to do the accounting, to do the necessary work, to ensure that when students come knocking on April 1, to have work effected with respect to their student loan, that there was a legal entity in place. We were advised in the Department of Education that time was required, and that is simply the reason why this lonely amendment is there, Mr. Chairman, that changes the effective date from 30 March to 29 March, no more and no less.

Mr. Chairman, that is the last amendment that is being proposed, I believe, by either side. What it simply does, as is indicated, it changes the date from 30 March to 29 March, which, in fact, of course, is today's date. Essentially, as a result of our deliberations and our debate, Mr. Chairman, we will now have - assuming that we will have conclusion of this particular debate and that we will have passage of this bill - we will, as a result of this legislation, have once and for all created and established a legal authority that provides a funding arrangement for students, so that their student loan regime can continue without interruption once an application and once a request on behalf of any student is made.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair has had a chance to review the amendment to Clause 19 as put forward by the Minister of Education, and certainly rules that it is in order.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to respond to the Minister of Education who spoke about Clause 19 which is changing the date from the 30th to the 29th.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that what the Minister of Education neglected to say was that government did not exercise their option in this matter. They had an option. As the minister described, the Bank of Commerce got out of the student loan business, but through correspondence we had to and from the Bank of Commerce a decision was arrived at August, 2003, that they would extend their loan portfolio until March 31. If government wanted to exercise their option to go beyond that point all they had to do was let CIBC know by February 1, 2004. So, it is clear that there were choices in this matter and it was not as cut and dried as the Minister of Education mentioned when he rose to his feet a few moments ago. There were options on this portfolio, and CIBC had no problem with extending it beyond March 31, April 30 or June 30, if the government of the day wanted to do that. It is clear that the government did not want to exercise their option.

I will say for the record, that I tried to get this information from the minister - well, I guess it is the Minister of Education now - concerning that arrangement and, of course, I was denied that information. I tried last week to get my Cabinet Paper in connection with that very decision that was made in Cabinet and, of course, I was denied my Cabinet Paper.

I don't know why this new government is saying that they are open and accountable when, in fact, the very information necessary to carry on an informed debate in this House was denied to myself as a member. Mr. Chairman, the artificial date of March 31 is insignificant, it has no truth to the matter. Government had the option, they could have exercised their option and extended the student loan portfolio beyond March 31. So there is no urgency in bringing this matter to the House and Clause 19 doesn't have any relevance to this whole bill that it needs to be passed by today, March 29.

The only reason why it was changed from March 31 to March 29 was because last week the government of the day decided they would bring in a Budget tomorrow and so, naturally, in order to have their figures match their Budget, which was printed - there Budget was printed several days ago - they would have to have this inflationary deficit to match the phony report done by Michael Gourley. So there is no relevance to clause 19 making it March 29, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment as put forward by the Minister of Education to clause 19?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt clause 19, as amended?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order. I believe the other day we did not in fact pass the title, and it was for a reason that we did not pass it. Are you passing the enactment before you pass the title? So we will pass the enactment and then we will discuss the title, at some length?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act to Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act."

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To those who are watching at home this may sound a little silly but we are engaged in a debate, at second reading, now on the title. Normally we do this kind of general debate at the beginning of an act but because there were a number of amendments and there had been significant cooperation between both sides as to some of the amendments, at least, that we decided to do it in this order.

I do want to have some general comments about, not only the bill but about student aid in general. We are talking here about student loans. Student loans is only one aspect of the whole notion of student aid and the idea of young people being given an opportunity to get a post-secondary education, being able to achieve a qualification in life that will allow them to earn a living, to participate fully in society, to be able to raise a family and to provide them with the things of life. In fact, education is one of those things which can be, Mr. Chairman, the great equalizer for those who come from a background that may not have had the same kind of advantages as others by getting an education. People can often overcome some of the difficulties that people have in life through being in a family who may have economic disadvantages or social disadvantages of one kind or another and education is an opportunity to level the playing field by getting a proper access to good quality, in this case, post-secondary education because that is necessary.

We know, Mr. Chairman, that in this current climate and time, in order for young people to make their way in the world they need more than a high school education. Twenty-five or thirty years ago, in the last generation, a high school education was considered to be a job entry level training; that you could go into a job, into a big enterprise, and make your way, even to the top as many people have done with a high school education a generation ago. Today, that is not the case. If you do not have a decent post-secondary education beyond high school, many people are relegated to a very low paying job, a job that is often regarded as being short-term in nature, but unfortunately, for far too many, ends up being a long-term job at a very low wage or minimum wage. We see that now, Mr. Chairman.

If you look at any statistics about jobs in this Province, the number of people whose incomes are less than $15,000 a year - a minimum wage for a single person, if you had a full-time job, would get you about $16,000, or less than the poverty level wage. In fact, a $6 an hour job with 2,000 hours a year - in fact, I am exaggerating. If you had 2,000 hours a year, which is 50 weeks of the year at 40 hours a week, that would be 2,000 hours. If you were being paid the minimum wage of $6 an hour, your maximum salary for a full-time job is $12,000 a year. If students and young people who are unable to get beyond high school, are stuck with a minimum wage job, Mr. Chairman. That is what they are going to be stuck with for a long period of time, a job making them no more than $12,000 a year; if they are lucky enough to have a full-time job. We do have to recognize that post-secondary education and training is an absolute necessity for young people if they are going to be able to get out of the notion of a long-term, low-wage job. We have to make that accessible.

It disturbs me a little bit, Mr. Chairman, to hear that the Government of Canada, for example, one of their solutions is to raise the student loan limits. Allow people to borrow more money. Go further into debt is the answer that the Government of Canada came up with the other day; so that more people could borrow more money. Mr. Chairman, that is not a solution. It is not a solution, generally because it does not help those people who have the most inability or the least ability to take on big obligations of that kind. Instead of going for $25,000, they will go to $30,000 or $35,000 of debt after an education. The prospect of that kind of debt is a deterrent to people getting a quality post-secondary education. That is not the answer.

The other thing about that, Mr. Chairman, and we seen it again with the Government of Canada talking about the Canadian Education Savings Grant; even extending it. Most people at first glance would say: Well, isn't that a good thing? That you would take a $500 grant and put it into an RESP, I guess it is called, for someone now who might take advantage of that in fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years time, in 2020. That might be a good thing. Somebody who cannot afford to save for an education should do it now.

Mr. Chairman, at first glance it sounds good, but what is the message there? The message there is that the responsibility for you being able to get a post-secondary education rests with you, the individual, not with the society, not with the government, not with a body that is supposed to be responsible for ensuring that young people have a chance in the world. So we should not be heading towards higher tuition, higher student loans, more savings for future education. We should be heading in the other direction, Mr. Chair, for lower tuition with more support from government for students, a needs-based grant system so that those who can afford to go may be able to pay for their own accommodation, and if we can achieve the goal for free tuition in this Province, that would be a good thing.

We started bucking the trend by reducing our tuition by 25 per cent over the last number of years. This government, this party opposite, on previous occasions, put forth a policy of free tuition. We support that, that in this Province we ought to have free tuition for post-secondary education in the University and in the College of the North Atlantic, but a more important cost right now than tuition, with the exception of the medical school, and I will get to that in a moment, a more important issue now for young people is not necessarily the cost of tuition at Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic. It is the cost of accommodations, of being able to live, in particular live away from home, which most students have to do to attend the College of the North Atlantic or to attend Memorial University. The 17,000 students at Memorial University, the majority of them, have to live away from home and therefore they have additional expenses on top of tuition.

So, we have to move towards a system that recognizes that they have more expenses, first of all, and, secondly, their needs are greater and we need a needs-based grant system based on financial ability, not just opening up the student loan system the way we have. That is an important point that has to be made.

I do want to say a few words about the cost of medical education in this Province. I had occasion recently to meet with a group of students from the medical school, the Memorial University Medical Students' Society, who wanted to talk about their particular circumstance, because it is often regarded as: Well, we should not worry about medical students. They are going to do alright for themselves. They are going to be professionals. They are going to make lots of money, so whack it to them. They were excluded from the reduction of tuition fees in this Province. In fact, what happened in 1996, the tuition for students at Memorial University doubled to become the most expensive medical school program in the country at that time.

Now, Mr. Chair, that is an enormous problem that we have created ourselves when we, as a Province, are trying to recruit and retain medical doctors and have them come to work in our own Province. Our own medical students are being treated badly by this government by being forced into enormous debts. The average student debt burden upon graduation from Memorial University Faculty of Medicine ranges between $85,000 to $110,000. What happens, Mr. Chair, is this: If a young person coming out of Memorial medical school from this Province who probably went to the medical school with every intention of wanting to practice in Newfoundland, perhaps even in the part of rural Newfoundland where they came from, they come out the other end of medical school, they owe $85,000 and $90,000 and they are given a choice. They might have a recruiter from Atlanta or some place of the States ready to write them a cheque to pay off their student loan, another cheque as a signing bonus, and a salary higher than what they would get here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, what is going to happen to them? They are going to make the pragmatic decision and go. They may only say: I am only going to go for a couple of years - but will they come back? Will they be able to come back, or will they find a home in the United States or somewhere else in Canada and stay there?

We have to find a way, Mr. Chair, to ensure that the medical students that we are training, our own students in this Province, are able to stay here, and the way to do that is to reduce the costs of a medical school education. We can only do that if we do not allow the kind of tuition that we have at Memorial. We are now told that it costs $25,000, in terms of tuition, for someone to get a medical degree from Memorial. That is an enormous amount of money. Now, that is obviously not the whole cost because students have to live for the period of time that they are students and that they are interning. I think while they are interning they might get a small salary, but as soon as they start getting a salary, of course, they have to start paying off student loans and that sort of thing.

We do have a particular situation that has been allowed to grow and it has been happening in other parts of the country; I do not deny that. I do not deny that, but what we have seen in this Province is that students with very high debt loads end up having a choice of either staying here and trying to find a job that pays enough to look after student loans and look after themselves, or moving away where they get the maximum amount of return for a job, a higher salary, therefore easier to pay off their student loan. Unfortunately for us, who have subsidized the cost of education, because even a student at Memorial, obviously, is not paying the full cost in their tuition, this Province has paid for a very fine university at Memorial, which has graduated 70,000 people from Memorial since it became a degree-granting institution in 1949, and those students are leaving because they are drawn away by higher salaries elsewhere which they could forego. I meet people time and time again saying: Look, I would really love to stay in this Province and work, and I can get a job here at a certain rate -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have about a minute or so to clue up.

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank members for granting me leave.

There is a very important tie-in with this whole issue of student debt and the issue of people leaving this Province. Time and time again we hear of students who feel that they must go away to discharge their student loan debt so they can get on with their lives. They feel the student loan debt that they have, in many cases, is talked about as a small mortgage. That debt is something that inhibits them from getting on with their lives, raising a family, buying a car, having a car payment, buying a house, doing those things which people want to do when they get themselves an education and get into the workforce. If students are forced to leave the Province to do that they are the losers, because they do not want to go, in many cases, and we are the losers, as a Province, because we are losing their talents; we are losing their abilities. We are losing what they could bring to the table in terms of their skills, their knowledge, their education and their understanding. While we are doing this today to try to streamline the system of student loans, we have to recognize that student loans themselves, and the extent of student loans that exist today, the increase from about $8,000 on the average for a person coming out of a four year degree program to now in excess of $25,000, in some cases $30,000 and $35,000, is a very significant difference to happen in a short period of time.

Mr. Chairman, I would not want to be coming out of university today with a student debt load of $30,000, that would so very different from my experience as a student in this Province. I know the Leader of the Opposition and I were talking about this a little earlier. Many people of our generation got a virtually free post-secondary education, as a result of the policies of the day. We see a new generation coming up and taking on the burden of the cost of post-secondary education and carrying that with them into the workforce. It is just not fair, Mr. Chairman. It is just not fair that we should put that burden on the next generation when we, as a group, did not have to bear that. This new generation, who are taking that on, are actually taking on a greater burden than they should have to. We, in this Legislature, and you people over there in government, have to find ways of ensuring that the burden becomes less, not greater for students, than it is today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention, or our intention, to delay the timely passage of this particular bill either but I would like, at this point in the debate, to make a few general comments since we are debating the title of the bill. It is an area that has been near and dear to my heart personally, to the point actually, that in the time I was both Education Minister and Premier of the Province, particular in the latter period - when I was Premier of the Province the Canadian Federation of Students, in an unprecedented move, invited me to their annual meeting in Ottawa. The only time they have ever done that for a premier. They touted me as being the Education Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - because of the investments that we had made in post-secondary education, in particular, and the initiatives. The very strong well-founded, powerful, meaningful initiatives that we had put in place with respect to student loans. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, they were hoping - their plea was that the education ministers and the premiers from the other jurisdictions in Canada would emulate and copy the Newfoundland and Labrador model. The model that is in place now for student loans; the remission program. All of those kinds of procedures that are there.

This bill, in fact, goes one step further. There is one improvement, that I do acknowledge to the Minister of Education that the Federation of Students do endorse, the idea of doing it together. Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador putting together a single entity to deal with student loans rather than have two separate entities and two separate bureaucracies for students and their families to go through. There is another very positive step forward in this that will make sure and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes to student loans and the administration of them - and the cost of them, by the way, the level of debt and indebtedness leads the country. On the good side for debt and indebtedness, we are the lowest because of initiatives that we took in the last three years to reduce tuition by 25 per cent.

People in the debate before talked about: Oh, but what about the years before when you raised tuition? And yes, we did. Tuitions did increase, even in the three years that I was the Education Minister, but they still stayed towards the lower half of tuitions in Canada. With the reductions that we made in the last three years, the 25 per cent reductions, they are now the lowest tuitions in Canada; right here in Newfoundland and Labrador for a Canadian citizen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The Opposition members argued that point vehemently last year.

The Minister of Finance, the critic for Finance then, said: That can't be right. There are actually some citizens in Quebec who pay lower tuition than citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was partly true, but it was only if you were a citizen of Quebec going to a university in Quebec because they had a different circumstance whereby they have three different rules for tuition. A very low tuition, the lowest admittedly in Canada, if you are a Quebec resident going to a Quebec university, and then another tuition for other Canadians. Any other Canadians - if any of our sons and daughters, children, grandchildren - we, ourselves, want to go back to school, like the Minister of Transportation and Works did a few years ago when he went back to pursue his law degree. He took a little absence from the Legislature - did a good job too, by the way - and became a very good lawyer, as I understand it. I am not sure he has become renowned yet in the Province, but back in the Legislature where his real heart and soul is, in any event. If he went to Quebec, to a Quebec university, as Newfoundlander and Labradorian he would pay higher tuition than the Quebec residents and higher tuition than if he went to a university in Newfoundland and Labrador. So for Canadians we have the lowest tuition in the country.

Meantime, our students, through this program and through this bill that we are debating, still have $220 million worth of loans. That is what this bill is all about, by the way, $220 million worth of loans. It is not insignificant, Mr. Chairman, it is very significant. We have thousands of students, we have somewhere around the mid-twenties of thousands, 24,000 or 25,000 students right now in the university, in the public college and in the private colleges. I think the total number approximates 25,000 students who are in classes today and currently borrowing money today. Of course, this $220 million doesn't just cover them, because there are students out there who have been out for five or six years who are still paying on their debt. There are some still building up and amassing an accumulating debt and some struggling with trying to pay it down.

The ones that come out of school in three or four years time, if the current government lives up to its commitment instead of breaking another commitment - so far, what they have done is regularly break commitments, try to find a good excuse, say one thing before the election and do something else now that they are elected. It is a pattern that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have seen a lot of in five or six months. It is a routine they are getting used to. Unfortunately they are getting used to it. They will get even more used to it tomorrow, Mr. Chairman. Tomorrow they will get even more used to it.

Members of the caucus opposite - Mr. Chairman, this is interesting to note - for example, who found out on television like everybody else that there was going to be a wage freeze, woke up this morning to find out, for the first time as well, the first they heard of it. A few friends of mine talked about the shock that was there when they heard the radio reports this morning saying that there were going to be somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 job losses tomorrow.

MR. E. BYRNE: What does that have to do with this here?

MR. GRIMES: It has a lot to do with this bill, Mr. Chairman. I guarantee you it has a lot to do with this bill. We have these students out there with $220 million worth of debt and they were hoping that there might be some 1,000 to 1,500 jobs right here in Newfoundland and Labrador that they could apply for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - and now they are being told: No, no! There are somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 fewer opportunities for you in Newfoundland and Labrador because of this new approach, and it starts tomorrow.

The Premier, Mr. Chairman, was outside the Chamber - he answered some questions in the Chamber today and he answered them a bit differently to the media. Here he indicated, in answers to questions, that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know what he is talking about, he is talking about a number of 1,500. Well, I used the language, up to 1,500, because I am not privy to the exact number. There are three or four of them over there who are. There are three or four of them over there who are. There are three or four of them over there who do know what the exact numbers will be tomorrow. There are another thirty who have not the foggiest notion. They found out a little bit this morning, a little tidbit on the radio, and they are going to find out the rest tomorrow. Their jaws will drop, and they will probably fall out of their seats tomorrow. Today, Mr Chairman, the Premier was asked about a number up to 1,500, and the members here, who have been around for awhile, know that I am the fellow who says: Words are important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I said up to 1,500 for a reason, because I did not know what the exact number was. I knew it was somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500, from the sources that we have, which are every bit as good or better than most of what they have, because they do not have any. If they are not told by the one-man show what it is, they know nothing. Mr. Chairman, 1,000 to 1,500.

Outside, the media said to the Premier: You said that the Opposition Leader was wrong, that 1,500 was the wrong number. He said: Absolutely, it is the wrong number. They said: Would you like to tell us what the number is, since the Budget is tomorrow? You are admitting there are going to be some layoffs. Would you like to tell us? It is no big secret, obviously. You are confirming there will be job loses. You are confirming it on the eve of the Budget, so wouldn't you just as soon tell us what it is? You told us it is not 1,500. He said: It is only 1,000. Note the language: It is only 1,000. Listen to the words now: It is only 1,000.

Here we are right now, with the new approach, with 1,000 fewer opportunities right away for these students who are carrying $220 million worth of debt, and every one of them hoping that their future might be right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They know they have to pay it back. They would like to do it by living here, working here, being productive here, staying with their families here, starting to carve out a future here, and 1,000 - oh, that is wrong - only 1,000 fewer of them will find out tomorrow there is no hope here. You might as well go on someplace else and start to try and raise and earn some money to pay off your debt.

Again, the media said: Well, you promised no layoffs prior to the election. The Premier tried to say: I said no massive layoffs. They, to their credit, said: No, no, Mr. Premier, we have the tape right here and it says: There will be no layoffs. You have job security, Mr. Puddister. You have nothing to fear from us. The bad guy is Roger Grimes. I will take care of you. He said: Oh, maybe I did say that, but I meant no massive layoffs. He said: Well, how would you define massive?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have to come back for one more intervention a little later.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: By leave?

MR. GRIMES: Just a minute or so to clue up.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

I will clue up with these comments.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition needs more time, I am so enthralled with what he is having to say that I am -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am. I am going to give the Leader of the Opposition whatever time he needs to clue up on this particular piece of legislation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

I appreciate the Government House Leader living to a commitment that he made to the whole Legislature on Thursday past when he said we could have what time we needed to debate this bill after we passed the amendments. I certainly appreciate that. He has done a great job, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the new role, leading the government in the Legislature in the first week. I commend him on what he is doing here today, but I will not abuse the leave, rest assured.

The question again, Mr. Chairman, put to the Premier as well: So, you are confirming that it is not 1,500; it is only 1,000. He said: Yes, it is only 1,000. He said: Well, some people would describe that as being pretty massive. He said: Oh no, that is not massive; 1,000 jobs going out the door, there is nothing massive about that. He said: Well, what would you define, Mr. Premier, as massive? He looked right into the cameras - you will see it on TV tonight; that is something else you will learn for the first time - and he said: Massive means thousands, with an s on the end. It does mean 1,000; that is only 1,000.

There is the new approach. The new approach is that only 1,000 jobs going out the door is okay. It is no big deal. It is not a problem. He will pluck those out of his pocket and have them back next week. Now, if it were 2,000 - I used to be both an English and a math teacher - that makes it thousands, so if there were an s on the end of it, my good friend from Calvert, the Minister of Finance, the Member for Ferryland, who also was a very accomplished teacher, I understand, probably much better than that of being a Finance Minister - I am hoping he is going to get better at being a Finance Minister. In any event, their message is - because you have to listen closely. Words are important. We have a Premier, Mr. Chairman, who says 1,000 out the door is not a problem. If it were 2,000, I would agree that is massive. I committed to no massive layoffs, only after after he committed to no layoffs at all in the first place.

We do have the scenario where these students that are going to be, I would suggest to you, positively impacted by the bill in terms of the bureaucracy, the procedure and the process, are going to be bitterly, bitterly, bitterly disappointed tomorrow to find out that there are 1,000 fewer opportunities guaranteed, at least, going to disappear for them and their families in the Budget tomorrow. I believe they are going to be just as disappointed when they hear the language and listen to the words that say their Premier, their leader with the new approach, says that is only 1,000 lost opportunities. No big deal, nothing to be concerned about. When you are gone off to Ontario, you are gone off to Alberta; you are gone off to the United States, you are gone off to Africa someplace, or you are gone off to Korea teaching English as a second language when you would rather be home, do not worry about that. That is only 1,000 opportunities lost. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is really going to have to work triple time, quadruple time, along with Dr. House. The great Dr. House has his hands full now. I have a great appreciation for him, too. I worked with that man for seven or eight years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but I am telling you it is always a bit tougher when the first thing you do when you are trying to climb a mountain and make a difference is dig a hole for yourself, and put yourself five or six steps behind before you even take the first step up the ladder.

We will see tomorrow. Talk about the new approach. I am glad the Environment Minister is speaking up. It is the first time I have heard him for awhile. I am glad the Environment Minister is speaking up. We will find out tomorrow. The Premier - and I will finish with this, Mr. Chairman, because I do not want to belabour it but it is worth saying - today stood up and said: Sure, part of the problem - you want to talk about massive - he was trying to defend massive, because his 1,000 layoffs is not massive. He was trying to describe - this is massive, he says, so many hundred disappear out of NAPE in 1989; 1,000 and something in 1991; so many teachers in 1993. That is massive, he says. So, what was he suggesting? That they should have stayed in there? This was supposed to be a new approach. Everything he is doing, there is nothing new about it. Not one thing new about it. Layoffs in the public service have been tried before - tried over and over and over and over again, and the Finance Minister says you laid off these cumulative number of thousands of people over the last fifteen years but it is a mess. So, if it was a mess from laying them off, what were we supposed to do, leave them on?

MR. SULLIVAN: Did I say that?

MR. GRIMES: What were you supposed to do? No, you told the Premier to say it, I say to the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: You told the Premier to say it.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: You did tell the Premier to say it.

The other part of it is this: You cannot have it both ways. The other thing, by the way - let me make this point for members opposite, and we will say it over and over again during a Budget Debate that will go on for the next couple of months - a wage freeze, a wage freeze, the great brilliance of a wage freeze, I have been there. There have been wage freezes. By the way, I signed the contract, when I was President of the Teachers' Association, with the Peckford Administration. Two zeros. There were freezes for seven more years. There is going to be a freeze for another two. Altogether, by the way, that is eleven years of freezes in the last twenty years. The Finance Minister will stand up and say: That did not solve a thing. The place is in a mess. The fact of the matter is, freezes are not the answer. Layoffs of vital public servants is not the answer.

What you have now are these students, Mr .Chairman, in this bill, with $220 million worth of debt, that if they are lucky enough to get a job here, their wages will be frozen, if they are working for the public sector, for two years says the Premier. The problem is, everything he has said to the unions and the public so far he has changed his mind after. They find it very difficult to take, at face value, anything that he says. They find it very difficult. So, it is either frozen or an extra 1,000 of them, at least, are going to have to leave the Province to try to start paying back the money we are about to approve in this bill.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leave from the Government House Leader. I appreciate his living to the commitment of last week, and I appreciate the time we have had to debate this bill because it is an important bill and it will help on the bureaucratic side. From that point of view I am glad to see it here, and I hope that it does bring some real benefits for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador because what we are going to find out tomorrow is not going to benefit them at all.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to speak once more on the bill before the House and I want to reflect a bit on some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, and the point that he raises about the students who have this debt burden and what their expectations are in this Province.

He has brought some new information to the public, Mr. Chairman. The news is not on yet, but I understand from him that the number of layoffs has now been confirmed by the Premier. We could not get that information in Question Period. It could not be obtained in Question Period but apparently the Premier has told the media, who will put it on the news tonight, that the number of layoffs that he is talking about is 1,000 jobs. One thousand jobs will be cut from the public sector. Now that, Mr. Chairman, is not what he said in Question Period. He said: I do not stand for layoffs. Does that mean he does not believe in layoffs, he is not going to do them? The same Premier has in fact told the media that he is going to lay off or reduce the public sector by 1,000 jobs. Some of those may be school teachers that the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is going to be complaining about next week when his school board tells him he is going to lose a classroom or lose a school. He may even lose the whole school board. He is going to be complaining about that because his constituents are going to be complaining to him about it.

Mr. Chairman, are the 400 students who graduated from Memorial in the last year with Education Degrees who are going to be looking for jobs, where are they going to be going? They are not going to be going where there is a need for teachers in this Province. They are going to have to go somewhere else. They will be going to Korea teaching English as a second language to get enough money to be able to pay for the student loans that they have.

That is the consequence of these kinds of policies, Mr. Chair, the direct consequence of policies that this government apparently has adopted. Now members opposite may not know this. Some of the members opposite may be just as much in the dark as the public was until half an hour ago or an hour ago when the Premier told the media. They may have told the media before they told the caucus, but the media now has it from the Premier's mouth that there will be 1,000 fewer jobs in this Province in the public sector after the Budget comes out tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, you wonder why young people are discouraged about getting a good quality post-secondary education, because if a big, huge debt goes with that, they could be putting themselves in a situation where they are going to be gone out of this Province, where they actually have to go somewhere else in order to get a job that helps them to pay for their education. There are not very many jobs for teachers in this Province, except in the public education system, the K to 12 system, where they have trained at Memorial University to do.

Mr. Chairman when we are talking about 1,000 jobs being gone, which is what I understand the Premier has confirmed -

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Leader of the Opposition are impugning to me a statement that I said there were 1,000 jobs going to lost in the Budget outside. That is absolutely incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not impugning anything. I am just reporting what I have heard, that the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: It simply requires some clarification, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is not enough to say that 1,500 is not the right number, which was the answer in Question Period. Well, if it is 1,499 it is not 1,500. So the Premier could be right by saying it is not 1,500. Now he is saying it is not 1,000. I think he did say that he considered thousands to be massive and 1,000 was not massive. I do not know, maybe I am interpreting. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition is interpreting, I do not know. I was not there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I was not there, but the Premier is here and he is in a position to clarify that matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi be heard.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to apologize to the Premier if I suggested that he said there were going to be 1,000 layoffs, but perhaps he could clarify the matter. If he did not say there were going to be 1,000 layoffs, how many layoffs did he say there were going to be? I understand he was challenged by the media when he used the words massive layoffs today, and since the election, but before the election he said: no layoffs. So, we really do have a problem here if the Premier is now saying 1,500 is not the number; 1,000 is not the number. Well, what is the number? Is it 999? Is it 1,010, or what is it? I am certainly happy to give the Premier leave to clarify this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We will all see the news tonight and we will hear the exact words that the Premier made. We will watch the news tonight and we will hear the exact words the Premier made. If the Premier does not want to tell us here in this House, the people's House, what the number is - he will say something outside the House and not tell us here what is going on. I think that is rather unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. I think we have some word games going on here. The Premier is the one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, because we have heard many times in the last couple of months there will be no massive layoffs. That is a new phrase because during the election there were no layoffs.

I heard on the radio this morning, I heard the Premier's voice and I do not think it was edited or changed. I believe the Premier was out in Gander and he said there would be no layoffs. I read the transcript of what he said on October 17 and I certainly think that was a design to give the impression to the leader of NAPE that there would be no cuts or layoffs. That was designed, obviously, to assure the leader of NAPE, and his members, that they had nothing to fear from this government.

Mr. Chairman, this is obviously not the case because we are talking about cuts in the order - let me say it this way, Mr. Chairman, in the order of 1,000 jobs. It may be 995. It may be 997. We are talking about those kinds of cuts. They may not all be layoffs. There may be some people taking voluntary retirement early, but there will be one less job. You know, we do not need to find ways of denying a particular number and yet the real issue is: Is there going to be 1,000 fewer jobs in this Province this time tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Education said that we will wait until tomorrow - to the critic opposite - as to how many less teachers there are going to be. Wait until tomorrow. I understand that the Premier gave the media some indication in the order of the kind of layoff that he is referring to; layoffs and/or cuts. They may not all be layoffs. They may be reductions in the number of teachers. They may be early retirements that are not going to be replaced. Whatever they are, when you add them all up, I think we are talking in the order of 1,000 fewer people employed in the public sector in this Province after this Budget comes down tomorrow than there are today. So it is easy to say: No, I did not say 1,000 layoffs -

AN HON. MEMBER: There are already 400 gone.

MR. HARRIS: I may have said 1,000 layoffs, and if I said 1,000 layoffs - I am being corrected on that. I say to the Premier, if I am being corrected on the fact that it is not 1,000 layoffs I will agree with him. I take that back. I apologize to the Chair if I misquoted the Premier. I wasn't there, but my understanding is that the Premier confirmed to the media that there will be in the order of 1,000 fewer people employed in the public sector after this Budget comes down.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have it right this time, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: Now, I may have it right this time. I don't see any objection from the Premier on that.

The force of the argument that I am making - we are talking about young people here now. We are talking about student loan debt, we are talking about young people in this Province who are graduating from university and are looking for jobs. Are they going to stay here to get them, Mr. Chairman?

I had some figures worked out for me today in terms of the number of students that graduate from Memorial University, from the Faculty of Education, in high school, in primary, in special education, in music education, and it is in the order of 426 young people graduated from Memorial University last year from the Faculty of Education expecting to get jobs in the K-XII system. I am leaving out people who attend the vocational education or even people with their masters degrees because they might already be in the system. We have over 400 young people graduated from Memorial who are looking for jobs in the public sector.

We do know - the figures have been put out in the last little while - that a large number of young people graduated from our university are looking to the public sector for employment. We see that there are going to be 1,000 fewer opportunities and that is a cause for concern for young people who are part of that $220 million student debt. That $220 million of student debt is shared by these students, these 400 graduates in education, for example, last year, and hundreds of other graduates who are expecting to get jobs who won't get them because when somebody retires their job won't be filled.

That is a significant consequence, Mr. Chairman, and it is a lot different than the message that was being given to public servants before the election than they are receiving now.

CHAIR: I remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My time has expired, I will sit down.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to speak again other than that I was challenged and provoked by the Premier in his interjection, and I don't mean to prolong this. What we did see and what we witnessed - and the Premier is quite free, if he wants, to stand and contradict me when I sit down. He can do that any time. He was given an opportunity by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to stand up and answer a question and decided not to do so. I invite him now, if he wants to, to participate and clarify again, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this.

What we are seeing is a Premier, Mr. Chairman, who is too cute by half, which is a Newfoundland and Labrador phrase; too cute by half. We saw it, Mr. Chairman, with the Metis who said they felt betrayed because he wrote them a letter, and we all listened to the radio interviews where he said - we were all there, I was in Labrador. Talking about the Powley decision, he said: Oh, no, you needn't be concerned, the Powley decision, we will apply it to you, no ifs or ands. As a matter of fact, he said: I am a lawyer. I have had a look at it myself, and I can tell you, if I am elected, the Powley decision will apply to you - and wrote a letter to that effect, that the Metis Nation put into the newspapers all over Newfoundland and Labrador, saying: Here it is, the Powley decision that will apply to the Metis of Newfoundland and Labrador. Then, to send his minister up there afterwards to say: Well, it did apply. We did apply it to you, except it does not apply to you.

The definition of Metis in that Powley decision, which he said he had looked at before the election, and every Metis in Newfoundland and Labrador believed that upon the election of this government they would be recognized for their hunting and fishing rights just like the Metis in Sudbury, just like the Metis in Western Canada, that is what they all believed. They is why they were saying they were betrayed, but too cute by half, the one-man show Premier said: Oh, let's read some legal words. I am applying it to you, but you are not actually defined right in the Powley decision. It does not mention the Metis of Labrador in this decision, so therefore I am applying it. You are not mentioned, so it does not cover you.

Now nice cute legal talk is fine if you are in the legal profession and you are standing up for your client who is paying for you to argue their case. Every one of those people trusted that man and they felt they were using the language right in it. Where is the value of a commitment? We feel betrayed. What we have now is old too cute by half who got caught today, and will be on the evening news this evening, in here, in the Legislature, where we stand up with the Freedom of Speech, freedom of choice, saying our piece, telling the truth as we know it, and - I do not believe I mentioned the word layoffs. We can check Hansard. What I have said all day is this: There is going to be job loses. In all the questions I asked, I said: Aren't there going to be job loses of up to 1,500? Of course, hot under the collar, one-man show, did not like his treatment with the media, comes in here trying to put us in our place. Maybe he can put his own caucus and his Cabinet in its place, Mr. Chairman, but I can tell you one thing, he is just an equal in here with us. We were all elected!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We have our say, we have our rights, we have our views, and we will not be bullied or intimidated by this Premier or anybody else!

The fact of the matter is, he comes in and says, they are wrong - because one of us, maybe both of us, in speaking, myself and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, instead of saying 1,000 job loses, which is what he just said outside the door, we used the word layoff, and he jumps up on a point of privilege. I invite him to jump up again right now when I am finished, Mr. Chairman, and clarify it.

Job losses, they may not be layoffs; again, too cute by half because we know, for example, Mr. Chairman, everybody on this side knows, a few of them over there are going to find out tomorrow for the first time, teachers - take teachers as an example. Three hundred and seventy-eight teaching positions are recommended to disappear. Now we do not know, just like most of them over there do not know, if that is what is going to be read in the Budget tomorrow or not, but our sources tell us that is what it is. Now, are they layoffs? Do you know how many of those are going to get a layoff notice? Zero. There are going to be 378 teachers leave the system but no layoffs, which is what the Premier jumps and says - it is not layoffs - but there are going to be 378 fewer teachers next year. Why aren't they layoffs? Because there are over 400 teachers who are going to retire in June. So, that is the old attrition plan, and this Premier wants people to believe - and now the Parliamentary Secretary for Education is all excited about that, a big smile on his face. Last year, he said: If one teacher leaves, the education system is going to be on the brink of ruin. Today, he is going to defend 378 who can go out the door because none of them got laid off.

They are still not going to be teaching the children. They are not going to be in the schools. They are not going to be in the classrooms. They are not going to be in the board offices providing support. There are going to be 378 fewer teachers, job losses, and the Premier wants to stand up - stand up again now. I say to him. Stand up again now and tell us that there are not going to be 378 job losses. He is going to admit it on the evening news tonight, for you who want to know, 1,000 job losses, Mr. Chairman.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am reluctant to stand up, Mr. Chair.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about too cute by half. He talks about too cute by half. He is standing up before the cameras, for potentially anybody who is watching in Newfoundland and Labrador today, pointing to the Premier as if the Premier were here, when he knows fully that he is not.

Mr. Chairman, in so referring to a member not being here, I admittedly am breaking the rules but do it for this reason: If you want to talk about too cute by half, we have an actor in the Leader of the Opposition standing up in theatrics using his own words in The Independent, to use theatrics, pointing to a chair as if there was somebody in it, challenging somebody that is not there to demonstrate how good and rough he is, that the person will not get up and challenge!

Now, Mr. Chairman, you want to talk about too cute by half!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to sit down and let Mr. Too Cute by Half continue on with his entourage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is indeed, as I understand, out of order for anyone, even if it is on your own side, for the Government House Leader to suggest that someone is not in the House. The only comment that I would make to the point of order is that it is not a point of order that was raised other than to put himself out of order.

I would also point out to the Government House Leader, Mr. Chairman, there was no difficulty in the debate that was unfolding here today until the Premier came back into this Chamber and, I would say without hesitation, provoked the members in the Opposition over here. Provoked. So, there is a debate unfolding here which will unfold as it should, I would submit, and if everybody moved on and got on beyond the provocation stage, we would not be up here making these non-points of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order, but I ask the Opposition Leader if he would kindly contain his remarks to the title of the bill, Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, just to finish the point that I was making, there was absolutely nothing that occurred when the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was speaking, just like I am now, to prevent the Premier from answering the question and making an intervention, which he did. The circumstance is identical as it is this minute, no difference at all. As the Chair would know, it would be improper for me to mention whether or not any member is in this Legislature or not, but I know one thing, and we all know this, that everybody has the ability to follow and hear the debate 100 per cent of the time. That was obvious from the intervention made, and I again invite the Premier to refute what I am saying.

The point again, Mr. Chairman, is this - and I will conclude with this point - and I said when I rose, I committed the last time, and I am usually a man of my word, that I was not going to prolong this debate. We were prepared to pass this bill, but the one-man show decided to ride in here from Dodge somewhere and put us in our place. Well, he can put that side in their place, if he wants, but right here, I can tell you this, that right here it will confirmed for all members and the public in a short while, in a couple of hours or so on the evening news, that the Premier himself has identified for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a day in advance of the Budget, that there will be 1,000 jobs lost as of tomorrow in the Budget.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: There is no need of him coming in here and saying: I did not say layoffs, they are job losses.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his time has lapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was not intending to speak again but the debate has gotten to the point where I think it is necessary to add a few more remarks.

You know, in Question Period today, when talked about this, it may have been in the heat of argument that the word layoff may have been used instead of something else. I just want to read to you what the Premier, in fact, said on Open Line when Leo Puddister, the President of NAPE, called in on October 17. I believe that was on a Thursday, Mr. Chairman, and the election was the following week, so the timing was sort of important. There were a lot of NAPE members out there who were trying to decide how they would vote, whether they would support the now Premier Williams, or whether they would support the Leader of the Opposition, or whether they would support the New Democratic Party. I think it was pretty important what words were said at that time because a lot of people were listening. Not only members of NAPE but members of CUPE were listening as well. I would say that a lot of votes were hanging in the balance, Mr. Chairman. People were wanting to know what had happened, because one of the things that appeared in the Blue Book, or the blueprint that it is called now, was a discussion about there being an opportunity to reduce the public sector by 25 per cent over a period of four or five years. That was committed to paper, in writing, passed out by the members opposite in seeking election, so this became a controversial issue. All of you will remember that, and the public will remember that.

Mr. Puddester was calling in. He was the last caller, and just barely got in on the program as Bill Rowe was about to say his good-byes to the Premier as the Premier was heading off to the West Coast for some meeting. This was a very important chat, and the words that were used by the Premier were very important, I would say, to the members of NAPE in terms of how they regarded this government-in-waiting, who wanted to be government, four days before the election. What the Premier said was: You have seen, over the last couple of years, there have, in fact, been cuts in the public sector and cuts in teacher allocations in our Province under a Grimes government and when Roger Grimes was Premier. We are not talking about Clyde Wells here. We are not talking about 1993. We are talking about over the last couple of years, when Roger Grimes was Premier. He only became Premier in 2001.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not ten years ago.

MR. HARRIS: Not ten years ago. We are talking about that. We are talking about cuts in the public sector and cuts in teacher allocations under a Grimes government. Then he said: I do not stand, you know, for layoffs and cuts in the public service. The term layoffs and cuts are used together, not just separately. In another place he says layoffs.

We are talking here about reductions in the public sector. We do not need to really be that specific about whether they are layoffs or whether they are teacher allocations, or whether they are actually cuts, or whether they are attrition or whatever. What he is saying is that we do not stand for layoffs and cuts in the public sector.

Then he goes on and he directly talks about the attrition thing. He said: The point made in the blueprint was that an observation was made that, over the course of the next four or five years, there will be a 25 per cent turnover in the public service in the sense that there will be voluntary retirements, and some people will be getting the retirement they have earned. So, there may be some opportunity for some positions that are no longer necessary and that is a very, very, very small percentage - three very's. Then he goes on to start talking about contracting in. There would be more jobs in the public sector.

That is the kind of conversation that it was, and as a result of those kinds of assertions made by the Premier, Mr. Bill Rowe said: Leo Puddister, do you have a follow-up? Just a quick follow-up, Bill. What you said now, Mr. Williams, is a bit different from you books. Well, I will take you at your word.

I take that as kind of a message, Mr. Chairman, that you conveyed to us and to me that you are not going to do anything drastic here, that you are not going to have cuts to public services and layoffs. That is the message that I got, and Mr. Puddister took him at his word, and I would say that sent a signal to its members, the members of NAPE, that it is safe to vote for this government, safe to vote for them because they are not going to take us on.

When we react here in this House, we are reacting as politicians. I happen to be a lawyer, but I am not reacting like a lawyer. I am reacting as a politician to the fact that this government is now doing the opposite of what they said they were going to do back in October before the election. That is the issue, and whether you are going to call it layoffs and be technical about, or call it reductions and job cuts - call it what you like - it is a very different scenario than was laid out prior to the election.

That is the issue here, Mr. Chairman, and the members opposite will find out the exact number tomorrow - and it may not be 1,000. In fact, I would venture to say it is probably not going to be 1,000. It is probably not. Why would you pick an exact number like that? It is probably going to be something different than 1,000. It may be 1,050. It may be 1,200. It may be 972. Whatever it is going to be, it is probably not going to be exactly 1,000. So, you can go around all night, all members opposite, and anyone asks you - no, no, we are not going to have 1,000 layoffs or job cuts, and you will be right. Every one of you can phone the open line tonight and say, I can assure the listeners of open line tonight that there will not be 1,000 job cuts or layoffs, or reductions or whatever. There will not be 1,000. The Premier has already said that.

There may be 1,010. There may be 1,050. There may be 1,200, but I think what happened outside was that the Premier agreed that the order of job losses contained in this Budget is in the order of 1,000. It is not 1,500. He backed off 1,500. He backed off 2,000, but he did not back very far off 1,000. We will see the exact words tonight. I was not there so I cannot quote him, but I do have the understanding that the Premier acknowledged that the kind of job losses in this Province as a result of this first Budget are in the order of 1,000.

Mr. Chairman, if we have 20,000 public servants poised to go off work and we have 1,000 job losses this year and 1,000 next year and 1,000 the year after and 1,000 the year after that, that sounds not far off the 25 per cent reduction that the Premier did talk about in the Blue Book. In the Blue Book, people were afraid of a 25 per cent reduction to the public sector through attrition, and great pains were taken by this party and members opposite and they were quaking in their boots. They were afraid they were not going to win. So, they had to back off the implications of a 25 per cent reduction in the public sector, but we are going to see a good chunk of that tomorrow, I think, Mr. Chairman. If we are going to see something in the order of 1,000 job losses through attrition, through layoffs, through teacher allocation reductions or whatever it is, if you keep that up we will have the 25 per cent in four years. That is something that was said in the election campaign. It was backed off by the party opposite when they were challenged on it because it became an issue in the campaign.

The word fearmonger was used. In fact, I heard the Member for Lake Melville, when the 1,000 job figure was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, he called it fearmongering. That is what the Member for Lake Melville said when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. It is fearmongering when he was talking about 1,000 job losses. Mr. Chairman, that is what they said during the election when people were reading out the Blue Book. They said: This government intends to look at a 25 per cent reduction in jobs through attrition. That was fearmongering. Today it is fearmongering when we are talking about 1,000 tomorrow. The Premier himself said: Well, that is the order of jobs that we are talking about.

Fearmongering! There must be a lot of fear over there if they are talking about the Premier's agreement with the figure of 1,000, or around 1,000, as being the layoff, as being realistic, and when it is mentioned over here it is called fearmongering. Perhaps they should have a caucus meeting before this Budget tomorrow so members opposite know, because they are going to have to defend it, Mr. Chairman. When the Budget comes out tomorrow they are going to have to defend it. I do not know who is going to defend it. You cannot say fearmongering tomorrow when we are faced with the real numbers.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that the students of this Province who owe this $220 million are not going to be very happy when they hear that there are going to be 1,000 less job opportunities for them when they graduate, or if they have already graduated, and are looking for work.

That is the point of how it relates to this debate here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and it a very important point that has to be made.

I thank the Chairman for the time that I have been allocated.

CHAIR: I remind the member that his time has expired.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 1

Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?.

Motion carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 1 passed with amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee has considered the matters to it referred and have directed him to report Bill 1 passed with some amendments.

When shall the report be received? Now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): First reading of amendments.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time? Now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A Bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 1)

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

On motion Bill 1 read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave notice earlier today, Mr. Speaker, and I asked leave to introduce Bill 12 relating to Supplementary Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to introduce Bill 12, a bill relating to Supplementary Supply?

Those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 12)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

Message dated 29 March 2004. To the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2004. By way of Supplementary Supply and in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: _______________________________

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant-Governor

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the message together with the amount be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Estimates together with the amount be referred to Committee of Supply.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to discuss issues related to Bill 12, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service."

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12, "An Act For Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Carried.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 12, Supplementary Supply.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to just give a brief explanation of the Supplementary Supply Bill. It is in addition to funding that is already approved and voted there.

We strongly believe, Mr. Chairman, that supply bills for expenditures over and above should come as a supply bill to the House, Supplementary Supply, rather than in the form of a special warrant tabled later, where it is possible, humanly possible, to do it.

We certainly thank the Opposition for their co-operation in dealing with this, because we feel it is an opportunity to discuss it here in the House prior to its particular passage. It is not for a huge amount in comparison with the total Budget there. We are asking that $1 million, $1.4 million, $1,400,000, be applied to two different specific areas. One, subdivision 3.3.01.10 College of the North Atlantic Operations Grants and Subsidies for $1,150,000; and $250,000 be applied to subdivision 3.5.02.06 Training Programs under Purchased Services.

This is money that enables post-secondary institutions for training facilities, basically, under federally sponsored students. The money is 100 per cent recoverable from the federal government, so it is a non-particular cost item to our Province, but in order to be able to do that it is important that we would get approval here, in the House, as opposed to having a special warrant. We feel that it is important. It gives members an opportunity if they want to comment on that.

It is an item that would be expended and it would be a100 per cent recoverable item, so it is not one that would impact on the bottom line of a particular budget as such, in that way, because we will get the money back.

I do not intend to belabour the point here, just to clarify that. If anybody wishes to have any discussion, I will certainly answer any questions, if they have any specific questions, and I am sure the minister would.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 12. This bill, as was introduced by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, is about: the cheque is in the mail. That is basically what it is; the cheque is in the mail. It means that the Province is going to spend money for post-secondary training, and they will be reimbursed by the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: The agreement is signed.

MS THISTLE: The agreement is signed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You signed the agreement.

MS THISTLE: Absolutely! Did I say I was against it?

Don't get all hot and bothered! Don't get hot and bothered!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I know you are having a bad day but, hold on, you have not heard what I am going to say yet.

MR. SULLIVAN: We hope it is in the mail.

MS THISTLE: Yes, we hope. We hope a lot of things are in the mail. You know, there is mail coming tomorrow but will we like what we see in the mail tomorrow? That is the question.

I think there is a lot riding on the new Premier's speech of January 5. I would like to know who the speech writer was for January 5.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is one of the jobs that will be gone tomorrow.

MS THISTLE: I would say that job is gone, long gone, months ago. That job is gone, gone out the door, because today we heard the difference of layoffs and job losses and massive layoffs. You know, I think all of us are bracing ourselves for tomorrow's Budget. We do not know what the Budget will bring, but we do know that there will be jobs lost. Now, for every job that is lost there is a family behind it depending on that job. I do not think we could be so cold to talk about numbers of jobs, whether they are 1,000 or 900 or 1,500, because for every job that is out there, there is a family home waiting for bread to go on the table that is associated with that job. I do not know how we can bring any humour to that because, you know, it is very somber when you talk about the implications of job losses. Every job is so important in this Province.

I want to talk about January 5. It all went down hill after January 5. Any hope that was out there for a student who was going to graduate this year and pay off part of that $220 million of the bill that was passed today, I wonder, how do they feel today? They did not feel good after January 5 and then, of course, how do they feel today when the Minister of Education put out a news release and said that the integration of this loan from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be good things for students in this Province. We passed that today. Now, can you tell me what is going to be good, except that it is going to be convenient? Are you going to write off any of the students' debt load? Are you going to make it any easier for those collectors that hound people night and day?

I had a call last Friday when I got home to Grand Falls-Windsor, there was a certain collection agency that was hounding a student. They had called eight times in the one night looking for money which that student could not pay. I have not heard the Minister of Education stand in his place and let the people of this Province know what the Province intends to do about collections. We all know that there is a default rate, and I think that is the reason why you were trying so hard. You had your budget printed. Your budget was printed last week. You would have had to engage your Minister of Environment and Conservation to shred all those budgets if you did not get that bill passed today because you were depending on that figure being inflated today. If we did not pass that bill, with the numbers we had over here, the first job for Mr. ‘cardboardman' would have been to go and take those budgets that were printed a week ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: The paper tiger.

MS THISTLE: The paper tiger - and he would have had to shred all those budgets and truck them off to Robin Hood Bay. Oh, no, he was not going to do that. He was going to recycle them, excuse me. That was your first assignment but no - we know that the Government House Leader, to his credit today, is in the Premier's good books because he got that bill through. He got that bill through, so you are saved today. You have your Interim Bill passed and you got your student loan bill passed.

I do not know who wrote the Premier's speech on January 5. I would like to find the person who wrote that speech because I will tell you, if that is his new approach to growing our economy I would like for people to get their seatbelts on for tomorrow. Get your seatbelts on because if that is his message -

MR. REID: Get your tickets bought.

MS THISTLE: Get your tickets. I heard they were sold out here in the House of Assembly. There is no way to find an extra ticket to get in tomorrow in the House of Assembly. We tried to get extra tickets for some people who were coming in from the districts but they said forget it. It is the biggest show in town. You will never get a ticket tomorrow. We are hoping to hear all good news tomorrow for growing the economy.

January 5, I think that was the clincher. The first thing the Premier did in the spirit of collective bargaining was say: Look out here CUPE and NAPE, forget it, the wage freeze is on. Now you can schedule your time in the Fairmont Hotel. You can get all the people around you want from your national body, but forget it, the wage freeze is on.

The second thing the Premier did in the spirit of collective bargaining - because he is new to this game. He said: Pensioners, that extra money that you are getting, forget it. I did not mean that. We are going to claw that back from you because it is more important that we contribute to the unfunded pension liability than give you what was given to you last year.

Then, on the heels of all that, we had this question of - there are going to be jobs lost. Is it going to be a massive job loss or is it going to be not so massive? Anything over 1,000, for the record, is massive.

AN HON. MEMBER: For the Premier.

MS THISTLE: For the Premier. Anything under 1,000 is normal, a piece of business. Anything over 1,000 is massive. He is not going to be associated with massive.

We stood here today and we wanted to make - I did. I raised an amendment that would see young people being a part - for the first time in the history of this Province we are now in charge of the student loan portfolio. I got to my feet today and brought forward an amendment that would see young people having something to say about our student loans here in this Province. But, do you know something? The new government would have no part of that, absolutely no part. They had no interest in including young people in the Student Loan Corporation. There are lots of things that the Student Loan Corporation could bring; lots of changes that young people could bring. We saw that two years ago. We seen that now for at least five to ten years, all of the changes that were made, and they were all positive. They did not come from officials, professionals, politicians, bureaucrats, they came from young people. But do you know something? The government voted that down today. They did not look at that as being important. They said: No, we do not need students on the Student Loan Corporation.

Why would you even name the bill, Student Loan Assistance, if you do not want to include students? I cannot imagine how you could name a new body, a Student Loan Corporation, and say we have no place for students on that corporation. Students are the ones who can tell you what concerns those young people everyday. They will let you know how we can provide a better service to students, not a poor service to students. All of a sudden this new government - we are finding out that a lot of the promises that were made are all hung up on words.

Now the former Premier of this Province, the Administration that I was a part of, stood in this House and he had a speech day after day on: Words are important. Now the only thing I can suggest is that the current Premier must have thought that was a very important speech, and I would tell him that he would definitely have to have a course in that. When somebody can stand in their place as Premier of this Province and get hung up on a words like massive and not massive when it relates to people's lives and their families. Can you understand that? I cannot understand that because for every job lost is a lost opportunity. If a student who will graduate this year wants to spend their time in our Province, carve out a place for them and their family, contribute to our economy - in rural Newfoundland, hopefully, because this is where the emphasis should be right now, rural Newfoundland. St. John's and the Avalon can basically stand on its own. They have been doing very well in the past six to seven years.

Where are the job cuts or job losses? It depends on how you phrase the question. I would say that the Premier is sloughing this off as being a play on words. I do not know how you can slough off job losses. That is not going to work, because for every job loss - I can tell you, what will not be into tomorrow's Budget is the real truth. A lot of things will not be said in tomorrow's Budget. During the course of the next two months, when we stand here and debate the Budget, that is when we will actually find out what the real numbers are. The real numbers will come out in the next month or two when we have a chance to debate here in this House because you will not tell the truth tomorrow. The real numbers will come out and people will lose their jobs. There will be two or three here every day in every department, and the numbers that you are talking about tomorrow will multiply twofold and threefold. That is what will really come out when we stand and we do the Estimates and we find out what is really going to happen.

MR. REID: All contract positions will go, and they will not even be mentioned.

MS THISTLE: Yes, contract positions, temporary positions. You know, there will be cute names put on them but for every job lost it will be a person and a family behind that person. That is what we are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am going to tell the truth. I am going to tell the truth.

Yes, when we stand here in this House, every decision, every debate that takes place in this House concerns the people of our Province. Yes, they are the taxpayers but yes, they are the future; they are tomorrow.

I would have to say, standing here in this House and looking at the events that have happened since October 21, what encouragement are you putting forward as a new government for young people in this Province? What encouragement are you putting forward for seniors when you are going to claw back a pension, indexing, that has already been granted to them? What encouragement are you going to give to the collective bargaining process?

You know, the work that was done in trying to bring government business and labour together in growing the economy of this Province, well, sure, my goodness, you have destroyed. In a matter of a couple of months, you have destroyed the collective bargaining process in this Province, when you come out as a new Premier, hoping to bring good news and encouragement, and blurt out there is a wage freeze without ever going to the table, without ever having a meeting with union heads. Ten minutes to seven before going on provincial television, to say: Hey, sorry now, but I forgot to tell you this but guess what? There is going to be a wage freeze.

Now, what kind of rapport or relationship can you have with a union and membership when you saying something like that? What can people expect that you will say? One thing one day to a certain audience and the next day you will say something else. I mean, we have seen examples of that being talked about here today in the House, when people put their vote of confidence in this new government on October 21, and they are finding out day by day, whether it be insurance, whether it be collective bargaining, whether it be health care, whether it be education, whether it be pensions, everything is changing. It is not what it was prior to the election. I think as long as this House is open and we have an avenue where we can make it known, people will find out that they have not gotten the government they voted in on October 21.

Now, it is our duty as members in this House to bring in whatever concerns we have that affect the citizens of this Province. I can tell you, based on what I have been hearing and what I have been seeing in the media - and I am sure that the members in the caucus of the government today were just as surprised as most people when they turned on their radio this morning to hear about massive job losses, because I am sure that was never ever discussed in the Tory caucus, or probably not even the Cabinet. In fact, I even hear that the Priority and Planning Committee of Cabinet has been reduced. Can you imagine?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: If I could just have thirty seconds, Mr. Chairman, if I could?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) thirty seconds.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I think the hopefuls in the nosebleed section are hoping that I will give some insight into what and how there might be a change in Cabinet, because they are all hoping for someone to slip up. I can see their faces over there, hoping that their turn is next.

Mr. Chairman, in my summation of this bill, as I said before, this is a bill that is routine. The cheque is in the mail, but what is not routine is what is going to happen tomorrow, and that is what I would say to the citizens of this Province. Be on guard for this new government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words about Bill 12, which is a Supplementary Supply Bill, which has the effect of providing additional monies for post-secondary education in the Province. It serves to increase the amount available to the College of North Atlantic by $1.1 million, and purchased services of $250,000 for training programs. It is unclear as to what they are for. I understand HRDC is paying for some of them and that they are going to be a flow through.

I want to talk about the budget here of the College of the North Atlantic, Mr. Chairman, because that is the important amount under this, over $1 million, and it deals with a budget head of $61 million.

I said earlier today, Mr. Chairman, in fact this amount will increase the amount to $62 million, maybe $63 million. That is down from an $87 million allocation for the College of the North Atlantic, the public college system, in 1993. Ten years ago, Mr. Chairman, there was $25 million more. Percentage wise, we are talking about almost half as much again. We were spending almost 50 per cent more for the College of the North Atlantic than we spent last year.

I am going to be looking very carefully tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, when we see the Budget. I want to see an increase in that money for the College of the North Atlantic, because that should be the primary place where non-university post-secondary education goes on in this Province.

There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when students could look to the College of the North Atlantic, or the public college system under various names, for vocational education, for welding, for electrical work, for plumbing, for automobile mechanics, for diesel mechanics. There were all sorts of trades that are no longer offered by the public college system. Since 1993, Mr. Chairman, there are 50 per cent fewer instructors in the College of the North Atlantic system, the public college system.

What do we have, Mr. Chairman? We have employers out there crying out for trained workers, saying: We need more skilled workers in the workforce. We cannot find people to build houses. We cannot find people to work at Marystown. We cannot find people to work on projects.

We cannot do that, Mr. Chairman, because we do not have the programs in place in our public college system. Why, Mr. Chairman - and I see the Government House Leader grousing about this - do we have the operating engineers, the bricklayers, the carpenters' union, all the other unions - not all of them, but many of the trades unions - running their own training programs? Because they are not offered in the public college system, Mr. Chairman. I know that some of these unions have raised concerns. My talk about the private education system, that has nothing to do with unions. The unions are offering, on an non-profit basis, the education and training to their members that is not being offered by the public system.

If we had our druthers, Mr. Chairman, if we were in power, we would integrate those programs into the public college system with the co-operation and help of the unions involved. Our policy is not a threat to the programs being offered by the unions to fill in the gap that was left by government getting out of the public education system. We now have a system in the College of the North Atlantic which is a heckuva lot leaner than it was ten years ago, unfortunately.

One of the things that has happened over the last ten years is that the College of the North Atlantic has become very flexible, very able to provide programs as the need arises, able to fill in whatever gaps there are where there is a training need identified, where there is a program identified, but the funds have to be there to put those programs on.

I, of course, support this piece of legislation that is going to grant that extra million dollars in Supplementary Supply for the year ending 2004. What is of greater concern to me today, Mr. Chairman, because this is the last couple of days in the fiscal year that ends on March 31, two days from now, what I am concerned about at this point is how much money the College of the North Atlantic is going to have on Wednesday, on Thursday, on Friday, and in the year 2005, to offer programs to our students, or are many of them, about 4,000 of them last year, ending up having to go to private training institutions at much greater cost than programs offered by the College of the North Atlantic, for programs that do not have the same quality and standard as the College of the North Atlantic.

I want to end my remarks by saying this: Yes, we support Supplementary Supply for the College of the North Atlantic, but we look to a Budget tomorrow that recognizes that the public college system, the College of the North Atlantic, ought to be the primary delivery, the primary vehicle, for post-secondary education in this Province, that there should be accessibility for all students who want a post-secondary education and do not have the desire or the aptitude or the interest or ability, if that is an issue, to seek an academic education at university. We have to have a public college system. We have tried for many years and there have been many recommendations about having a community college system in this Province. We never achieved that, Mr. Chairman, and we look to this government, in their Budget tomorrow, to send a signal that they intend to rebuild the public college system so that students in this Province have the option to get good quality post-secondary education that is public, that is provided by the public, that is delivered on a non-profit basis in the public interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is indeed a great pleasure this evening to rise and talk about a bill that grants extra supply to the College of the North Atlantic. The College of the North Atlantic, as you are all aware, is one of the leading public post-secondary education facilities and programs in this country. It was another great initiative of the Liberal government in terms of bringing the various vocational schools around the Province together. The Conservative government years ago decided to set up three provincial institutes and five community colleges, and we all found out that did not work. As a matter of fact, I was part of that particular system and it was very disheartening at times to know that in St. John's there were three colleges operating, three public colleges operating in the City of St. John's, along with the private training schools. In a lot of cases, we were out there competing with each other in terms of the public colleges, so then we brought them all together and it showed you the kind of commitment that this government had in terms of post-secondary education in this Province.

Of course, the other thing that we did, the major thing that we did, was that we put the headquarters of this college at the birthplace of community colleges in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Stephenville. That was one of the major initiatives of this government, to put the headquarters for the college - there was a great lobby at the time for the headquarters to go in St. John's, but the government decided to put it in Stephenville. As we are all well aware, the Bay St. George Community College was the first community college initiated in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the headquarters for that college is there.

I have a couple of questions about this particular bill coming in at this particular time. I am just wondering, is this money that was already spent by the college and they are looking for extra money? Or, is this money that is being brought in now to advance to the college so they can spend it in the next fiscal year? I would like to know which courses are being offered with this $1.4 million. There is some information that we need to know before we pass this particular bill. Is it for courses that were offered in the last fiscal year, courses that were already put on and paid for, or are we advancing money from the college to the next fiscal year to put on courses? I guess we need to know what is happening here in terms of this money. What is happening here?

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not to interrupt, and I apologize for interrupting the member, but I just want to ask the Opposition House Leader: I wonder if we can agree to stop the clock?

I understand that the Member for Bellevue may be the last speaker, but we do know the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived based on a former agreement. If we can agree just to stop the clock at this moment, let the member conclude his remarks, ask the questions he certainly wants to ask, and we will endeavour to get the answers to those questions for him. In terms of from here, just to stop the clock so that we can continue with the debate as opposed to having to adjourn, technically, for 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Agreed, Sir.

CHAIR: There is agreement to stop the clock and continue with the Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: The question is in terms of: Are the courses already completed by the college, and they were short money, and what we are doing is giving them extra money? Or, is it an advance to next year and it will be courses that will be offered?

The indications were, when this bill was brought in, that this money is fully recoverable from the federal government. I would like to know which program of the federal government this money is coming from, and has this money already been advanced from the federal government in this fiscal year? Where is the money coming from, in this particular case here? I guess, if I get the answer to these questions, I am prepared to sit down and let the bill go through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a fair question that the hon. member asks. This money is largely for funds under the Apprenticeship Program and other training programs that are made available through the department. In response to his exact request for the exact courses, I will certainly undertake to provide a list to the hon. member so he will have a complete understanding of the nature of the exact courses to which this amount refers. I will certainly undertake to provide that information so he has a complete understanding of the exact courses, the exact nature of the Apprenticeship Program, the exact skilled labour courses that we are referring to and I will undertake to provide that list for him.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the hon. minister but he still did not answer the question. I asked: Were these courses put on in the last fiscal year or are they courses that are going to be paid for in the next fiscal year? That is the one I am really interested in. What are the courses? Were they courses that were put on in the last fiscal year or are they courses that are going to be put on in this fiscal year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Let me be clear, this is an agreement signed when you were in government, and Cabinet would have signed off on it when you were in Cabinet. All of the programs we are talking about are partnership programs that are already done, the agreement is already signed. The money is already spent as per the agreement that the former government would have signed off on. All we are doing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that is what I am trying to answer as directly as we can.

Essentially, what this bill is about is providing the government of the day the opportunity to spend $1 million - I think is what we are looking for, whatever the amount of the bill is - until it comes back from the federal government. I assume that it was part of an agreement through Human Resources Development Canada, but that is only an assumption on my part. I cannot see any other budget process or budget subhead where it would come from. It was an agreement signed by the former government, being you, with the federal government for apprenticeship training for the current fiscal year. The money is already spent and we are waiting for it to come back. That is all that this bill is about.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to thank the hon. Government House Leader because he did answer the question that the courses were already completed in this current fiscal year and all we are waiting for is the money to come from the federal government for it. I want to thank him for the answers.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2004, the sum of $1,400,000."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

CLERK: "Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2004, and for other purposes relating to the public service:" Preamble.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

CLERK: A Bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service."

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

Shall I report that Bill 12 passed, without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: Against?

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2004, the sum of $1,400,000."

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

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

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

I apologize for smiling. It is just that something struck me funny that I heard some time ago. I will not elaborate today. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. It is just one of those moments, I guess.

I move that Supplementary Supply Bill 12 be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 12)

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 12)

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 12 be read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of Bill 12.

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

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

I move that the said bill be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 12 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper." (Bill 12)

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

The Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, it is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's Dutiful and Loyal Subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of Supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 12)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (Edward Roberts, Q.C.): Mr. Speaker, In Her Majesty's Name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed a bill to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 1)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's name, I assent to this bill.

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor leaves the Chamber. Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, it being now stuck at 5:30, from a parliamentary point of view, even though it now be in the real world, the time of 5:45, I do move that the House now adjourn and reconvene at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow for the most eloquent speech that we are about to hear for some time by the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Also, to say that I do appreciate the good work, I would say, and the legitimate progress made today. It seems to work, obviously, better when individuals are engaged with trying to make things a little better. Certainly, on Bill 1, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and my colleague, the Opposition House Leader and, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate everybody taking part in the debate moving these very important pieces of legislation forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, at 2:00 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Motion carried.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, at 2:00 p.m.