The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour and congratulate many of the volunteer firefighters in the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques in the beautiful and historic District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the Fireman's Ball and had the opportunity to recognize the hard work and unselfish dedication by all volunteer firefighters in the community.

Mr. Speaker, among the night's events were opportunities to present many of the brigade members with new training certifications, an opportunity to honour retiring firefighter Alvin Sheaves for recognition of his many years of service with the department, and also recognition of a long-standing service by another brigade member, Mr. Ralph Myles, who had in excess of twenty years with the volunteer fire brigade in Port aux Basques.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of firefighters such as these individuals, and the full department in Port aux Basques, that families in our Province can rest assured that we have fire protection on a twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in congratulating and honouring firefighters Alvin Sheaves, Ralph Myles, and indeed all volunteer firefighters in this entire Province for their hard work and dedication to keep the residents of this Province safe and secure in their homes.

Thank you.

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.

I rise today to congratulate many of the talented athletes of the historic Town of Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, the Carbonear Parks and Recreation Committee honoured their sports enthusiasts on April 22. Athletes, special guests and families were on hand at the Carbonear Swimming Pool for the event.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the town in congratulating the following individuals for their outstanding achievements: Three-sport athlete Victoria Ralph won the Junior Female Athlete of the Year; and ‘basketballer' Michael Mutrey won the Junior Male Athlete of the Year.

For the second year in a row, Jill Colbourne, who excels in hockey, softball, bowling, rowing, badminton and basketball, won the Senior Female Athlete of the Year award.

Josh Janes took home the award as Male Athlete of the Year. Basketball, baseball and softball are Josh's most skilled areas. This past summer, Josh attended a national tournament in Ontario where he garnered an MVP trophy.

Finally, the Team of the Year award went to Carbonear Collegiate Girls basketball team which had a tremendously successful season in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating all of these athletes for their recognition by the Town of Carbonear and I encourage them to keep up their hard work toward achieving their athletic goals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by members?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs. I assume you are asking for leave to make a member's statement?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleagues across the House for granting me leave.

I would like today, Mr. Speaker, to send congratulations to a former resident of The Straits & White Bay North, Jill Hodge, originally from St. Anthony, who now resides in New York City and works with the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, on April 19, Jill competed in the Boston Marathon and her impressive showing placed her number two amongst all Canadian women, finishing three minutes - less than three minutes - behind the top Canadian female. Among all female runners, 6,653 of them, she placed twenty-second, and amongst all runners at the Boston Marathon, of which there were 17,950, she placed 321.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, today, to pass on my congratulations and I am sure all members of the House would like to join me in congratulating Jill on an impressive showing at the Boston Marathon and wish her success in all her other endeavours, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by members? Statements by ministers?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify and correct discussions which took place last week and yesterday in this hon. House regarding the document which outlines the impacts of the 2004 Budget decisions for each of the Province's electoral districts. A copy of this document was forwarded to members opposite last week.

In compiling the document, every effort was taken by officials to provide the most detailed and accurate information available. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly noted on the first page of the document.

In a $4 billion Budget, there are hundreds of line items, and unfortunately we have identified minimal inaccuracies. For this we apologize. In particular, the Ministers of Government Services and Tourism, Culture and Recreation have addressed issues raised concerning their departments. In these cases, the noted items were options which could have been taken by the departments during this difficult Budget, but in the final analysis were not chosen.

This is unfortunate, since so much work went into ensuring the accuracy of the document prior to finalization in late March; however, let me assure you that the Budget Details and Statistics 2004-2005 is indeed a valid document. It contains useful information for all Members of the House of Assembly on this years's Budget, the majority of which was also communicated by way of news releases and backgrounders posted to the government's Web site on Budget Day.

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to facilitate answers to questions on any other aspect of the Budget document which members opposite may have.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister providing us with an advanced copy of his statement. Just a few comments for clarification however for the residents of this Province, because this is a spin, we would suggest, being taken by the government here on what has happened. They indeed forwarded us the information after being requested under the Freedom of Information Act and a legal procedure had to be used to get it. So, it was provided but only when they were required by law to provide it.

Secondly, with regards to the reference of certain initiatives that were stated in there that were subsequently, either not done or decisions reversed, I would suggest it was exactly that. There was certain information in the documents, but as a result of public outcry, some of those decisions got reversed. All that government need do is admit that is exactly what happened here.

I would also point out that one of the ministers in the controversial position, shall we say - actually, the Speaker has it under his charge to rule upon, a point of privilege, and that deals with the Minister of Environment and Conservation. If indeed this document is, for all intents and purposes, valid, as suggested by the Acting Government House Leader, I would suggest that the Minister of Environment and Conservation can save all of us, and particularly yourself, a lot of trouble and stand in this House and apologize for the statement that he made here last week when he said the very document that the minister now says is valid and could be relied upon, except for some minimal inaccuracies, was a valid document. Whereas, he said it was a work in progress and a draft document. That was absolutely misleading to the people, and that is the whole point of why the point of privilege got raised in the first place.

I note again that the Minister of Environment and Conservation, wherein all this started, is still not listed in this document as being part of the apology that is being issued here today. These are my comments. I think he ought to register that apology with this House and with the people.

With regard to further responses and questions, as alluded to in the last sentence of this statement, I can assure the members opposite that we will have further questions about this particular document.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a document that we are talking about here issued by the Executive Council of government. Mr. Speaker, there is a concept in parliamentary practice known as ministerial responsibility. What we have here in this whole issue is ministers ducking responsibility, trying to blame it - as high as the Premier yesterday - on public servants. When in reality, decisions were made by this government, the consequence of which came to light as a result of this document, and they were changed.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this government to start accepting ministerial responsibility, not trying to blame things on public servants, and apologize to this House, as the minister has done here and the other members - including the Minister of Tourism and Culture, who is not here today, and the Minister of Environment and Conservation - to apologize to this House for the inaccuracies that have been put to the members on this side of the House and to the public as a result of this matter.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the craft industry is a valuable contributor to our economy and a growing employer of men and women in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 1992, the craft industry was valued at $10 million to $12 million and employed approximately 1,500 people. Today, more than 2,000 people work in the craft industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The industry is worth in excess of $38 million annually, with the potential to grow significantly. The craft industry has strong growth potential across the entire Province, especially in rural areas, because location is not a barrier to doing business.

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the potential of the craft industry and its importance to the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. That is why we allocated $150,000 in Budget 2004 to support the continued expansion and diversification of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The funding will be used to help companies, entrepreneurs, craftspeople, artisans and supporting agencies with market research and development, product development and the development of promotional and identification materials. It will also be used to support the implementation of key recommendations contained in the Craft Industry Development Strategy that was announced two years ago.

This government intends to work with craft producers, The Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, and industry associations to create more opportunities and to support entrepreneurs and businesses in the craft industry in growing and diversifying their product lines.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Anne Manuel, Executive Director of the Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is with us in the public gallery today.

Mr. Speaker, we will work with the industry and key stakeholders to develop new opportunities in local and export markets.

Mr. Speaker, every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can play a role in building the craft industry by purchasing our own Newfoundland and Labrador craft products more often. By working together we can help sustain and expand the craft industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, a very crafty statement by the minister. Very coincidental, as well, Mr. Speaker. In case the people of the Province do not know, we are into what they call a CRA polling period, which is done quarterly, whereby this research company does a poll to see how popular the government is. We had an announcement in a Budget a month-and-a-half ago, about $150,000 has gone into a craft industry that the minister takes this week, this day, during the polling period, to stand up and tout as one of the great things about rural development and an industry. I say hats off to the people in the craft industry and to everyone who works in it, but I doubt if this Administration is going to do much for them.

Mr. Speaker, if what has already happened in rural Newfoundland, where much of this craft industry takes place, they will not be selling their products in rural Newfoundland. If you look at the HRE offices we have had closed, the weigh scales we have had closed, the teacher layoffs that are coming, the health clinics that have closed, the driver examiners that have been fired, the 153 fee increases we have had, the 4,000 layoffs that we have, the ferry rate increases we have, the tourism operator fee increases we have, the clinic cancellations that we have had, the school cancellations that we have, I doubt very much if they are going to sell any of their products in rural Newfoundland or if there are going to be any tourists in rural Newfoundland because there is nobody to sell it to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: There will not be anything to see.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. Even in my own area of Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, the craft industry is doing well. However, assistance is always required. I agree that an aggressive marketing strategy is much needed.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there also needs to be more infrastructure for the craft producers of this Province in terms of the locations in which they operate. I noticed while travelling throughout the Island portion of the Province and in Labrador, there is a bit of a difference because I see a lot of crafts displayed in the local areas around the Island, but in Labrador, in the craft producers and the tourism places there - I know in Labrador West, the Labrador West Craft Association has difficulty in having a place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired?

MR. COLLINS: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: - has difficulty in having a place to display their wares in high traffic areas because of the cost of rental space.

There is much more that needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, to help the craft industry in this Province become even more successful.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Ministerial Statements?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House of government's decision regarding the structure of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission.

I am announcing today that the operations of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission will be integrated with the Public Utilities Board.

The Public Utilities Board will now be responsible for regulating fuel prices, in addition to hydro and auto insurance rates. The Public Utilities Board has the experience, expertise and procedures in place for rate regulation.

The position of Commissioner for the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission will no longer be required. The contract of the current Commissioner expires May 25^th. A petroleum products pricing office of the Public Utilities Board will remain in Grand Falls-Windsor. Existing staff of the commission will continue to be an asset to the fuel pricing operation.

Mr. Speaker, we are integrating the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission with the Public Utilities Board to improve efficiency and reduce the costs charged back to the petroleum industry and ultimately onto the consumer.

We want to remove any perception of political interference in fuel price regulation that may have existed in the past. As an independent or arm's-length agency, the Public Utilities Board will provide that necessary autonomy.

We are committed to fuel price regulation to ensure fairness, stability and transparency of pricing for resellers, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers.

A survey conducted by the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission in August of 2003 showed that 78 per cent of consumers want fuel price regulation. This restructuring will result in little or no disruption in service and minimal impact on staff.

Mr. Speaker, government has instructed that legislation be drafted to give effect to the proposed changes. Public Utilities Board Chairman, Robert Noseworthy, will be appointed Commissioner until the legislation can be passed in this House.

Government will be asking the Public Utilities Board to do an operational review of gas pricing regulation to ensure the concerns of all interested and industry parties are being addressed.

The costs of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission and the Public Utilities Board are totally recoverable from industry.

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.

I do not know why the minister could not have said that yesterday. Everyone else in the Province knew it, knew what was happening. This whole move is politically motivated. There is nothing more simple than what they have done today. Every advocate in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: I say to members opposite, wait and listen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Every single advocate-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is replying to a Ministerial Statement. I ask all members if they would give him the courtesy of being able to reply without significant interruption.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to know when you hit a nerve here. The bleacher creatures act up.

Mr. Speaker, this is a slap in the face to all the advocates in this Province. Every advocate in this Province for the Petroleum Pricing Commissioner has - written in a paper or on Open Line or in some form - endorsed the actions of the Petroleum Pricing Products Commission.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is happy. To go with the PUB, I do not know why you would want to change something if it is not broken. Why fix it, if it is not broken? There is nobody happy with the PUB, Mr. Speaker. Now, what guarantees or assurances will consumers have that they are not going to be impacted by this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, we have not seen any reduction. It is great to say that it is going to save the industry money. I am not interested in saving the industry money, Mr. Speaker; I am interested in the consumer being spared some extra cash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A few seconds to clue up.

Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, there is a -

MR. GRIMES: The Premier said no leave.

MR. SWEENEY: The Premier said no leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the Pricing Products Commission, I do not think anybody in the Province is under the illusion that it caused prices to be lower. It added stability, and I guess time will tell whether this new initiative under the PUB will continue to do the same, but I think, Mr. Speaker, we are missing the point here.

I think the point that we should be recognizing is that we have one oil refinery in this Province at Come By Chance processing mainly Middle East Oil, when we have vast offshore resources. What is wrong with the concept of treating our offshore reserves the same as we treat other industries in this Province, have secondary processing, have an additional refinery, because now the circumstances have changed where the Eastern Seaboard capacity is lower while the demand is higher. I think that it has changed, and I think it is important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. COLLINS: I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that government approach the oil industry as other industries in this Province and try to develop a secondary refinery in this Province that, in turn, could lead to a plastic industry, as has happened in other locations throughout the world. The secondary processing and jobs that come with it are badly needed in this Province. That is what we look forward to this government doing: bringing more advantage to the reserves that we have offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Province welcomes today's announcement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Province welcomes today's announcement by federal Minister John Efford to invest $2.98 million of federal funding in support of community groups in the Province whose work contributes to the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

The National Crime Prevention Strategy helps Canadians build safer communities with an investment in projects aimed to address the personal, social and economic costs of crime and victimization.

Mr. Speaker, the funding announced today will support forty-nine projects in communities across Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: The projects cover a wide range of issues, from a national research project that will help abuse prevention educators increase the effectiveness of their presentations, to projects that create support networks and build stronger communities by supporting skills and knowledge development. All are designed to address local concerns, as identified by people n their communities.

This funding commitment is welcome news for communities across the Province. This investment will expand current programming, and improve our long-term approach to crime prevention in communities across all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this federal support builds on the Province's investments in police training and equipment and the commitment to community safety. We are pleased that this investment provides financial support to fund the development of projects and partnerships that help build safer communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never would have thought the Minister of Justice would be doctor of spin as well. Another piece of polling period fluff. Here we are, Mr. Speaker; Ministerial Statements are usually to tout some policy position of the government, or some important initiative of the government, and we have the Minister of Justice standing up and supporting, and saying thank you for money that came into the Province from a federal minister, a Liberal federal minister.

I say thank you, Mr. Efford, thank you federal government, for what you have done. Indeed, we do appreciate the fact that you, the federal government, are putting money into here because we have thousands of volunteers in this Province who do play a role in crime prevention and we certainly need them, anything to enhance the safety programs and the safety of our communities, by all means, but I find it very ironic that this Administration - again, coincidently, during a CRA polling period - is out with a piece of polling period fluff riding on the coattails of a federal government announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe if this Administration was real serious about crime prevention, Mr. Speaker, maybe we would have had the minister standing to announce that they were making an equal contribution or something, but we see absolutely zero dollars from the federal government for crime prevention -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: - and flying on the coattails of the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, this Province would welcome federal money for this particular type of project and community services that would aid in crime prevention, but it is ironic, of course, when we were announcing this, we are ignoring the fact that in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, the community policing needs of the Aboriginal communities have been ignored by this government. We are very unhappy to see that, because that is very important in Aboriginal communities and in communities across this Province that we have the right level of support for community activities that are designed to assist in the prevention of crime and healthier and safer communities. This was not mentioned by the minister, of course, in his speech about what the Government of Canada is doing in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very serious issue which has risen to the forefront this past weekend. In the early hours of Saturday morning an off-duty officer with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was the victim of a violent and unprovoked stabbing on George Street in downtown St. John's.

The police officer was coming to the aid of another gentleman who was stabbed as well, who was a staff member at one of the establishments on George Street. It is my understanding that this young man is still recovering in hospital, however fortunately the police officer has since been released.

Mr. Speaker, when I became aware of this brutal, criminal act I immediately contacted both Mayor Andy Wells and Chief of Police, Richard Deering. I had a lengthy discussion with each of these gentlemen about the causes and consequences of this incident, as I am very concerned about what the implications are for our capital city and our Province generally.

As a result of these conversations, I have convened a meeting with myself, Mayor Wells and Chief Deering, so that we can further discuss this very serious matter. As leaders in this Province, we cannot and will not allow this type of activity to continue and we must collectively take every possible step to confront this criminal activity.

Both the Mayor and Chief expressed to me some very serious concerns about the situation on George Street and I believe that working with the owners of establishments in the downtown area and the community as a whole, we can effectively address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is known as a peaceful and friendly place. People from around the world come to visit us, not only to see our beautiful natural spaces and experience our rich cultural heritage, but also they see this Province as a tranquil refuge from the hustle and bustle of big city life.

We are also known in our Province for our love of music, laughter and entertainment, and George Street has earned a reputation as a great excursion on a visit to the Province, to enjoy a good time Newfoundland and Labrador style.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that incidents such as occurred this weekend, may cause serious harm to this valued reputation, and indeed our citizens. We have made significant strides in the tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years, and we continue to expand our markets and grow as a world-class tourism destination. We cannot allow the reputation of our Province to be tarnished by such acts of criminal violence.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage a public debate and involvement in finding constructive solutions to this problem, so that it may be effectively addressed for the safety and well being of our citizens and visitors alike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate receiving a copy of the Premier's statement in advance. Mr. Speaker, there are two serious issues raised here in terms of why the Premier is suggesting that he is choosing to get personally involved in this particular incident - not the only incident by the way,

unfortunately, that has occurred in the Province, and St. John's and George Street is not the only place. We all acknowledge and understand that. We are fortunate enough to have one of the lowest, if not the lowest, crime rates in Canada.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, with the statement and the position taken by the Premier is this, that this overreaction to it and involvement by the Premier usually signifies that, in fact, it is so very, very bad and so much out of control that the Premier, himself, has to get involved; which is the wrong message, I would contend, Mr. Speaker.

The two issues are, that we much collectively take every possible step to confront this criminal activity. If the government wants to get involved in that, I would suggest the Minister of Justice could be involved in that.

Secondly, we do not want to see any serious harm done to the valued tourism reputation. I can see the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation being involved with the mayor and others with respect to that. The fear I have, Mr. Speaker, is that by the Premier drawing additional attention to it himself, that he may be causing the kind of harm that he is saying in the statement he is trying to avoid. The incident is unfortunate. We wish it had never happened, but again, I believe that the Premier, taking this route, is likely to have the exact opposite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. GRIMES: - the exact opposite result, Mr. Speaker, of what he intended by reading the statement here today.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, it is an unfortunate incident that happened on George Street last weekend. We have had similar and more serious incidents. One happened in CBS some six months ago, where an individual was killed outside of a bar, and another one in Marystown within the last year. It did not prompt the kind of reaction that this incident did on Saturday night. Obviously, we are concerned about any crimes, and the Minister of Justice (inaudible) with national crime prevention strategy, we would like to see some changes here too.

When you have 7,000 people - I heard there were 7,000 seats on George Street, where drinking establishments are open until 3 o'clock in the morning. This incident happened very late at night, and maybe there are some things that can be done about it, but I do not know if we need to draw national attention to the fact that there was an incident on George Street at 3 a.m. last weekend though, because that itself is going to do more harm to our tourism industry and the good message that has come from George Street over the last number of years as a popular place for people to go and spend the evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to actually be recognized on a point of order before we begin Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The point of order relates to the statement made by the Acting Government House Leader respecting the documents from the government about the Budget Highlights and the district by district breakdown.

Mr. Speaker, the agreement and we do have - and I bring this up as a point of order to find out from yourself what the intention is in dealing with a point of privilege that you would rule on as a result of actions taken today. We had all agreed, in this House, that because of concerns about inaccuracies in the documents, that we would have the Government House Leader do an investigation first. That was to occur today. The Acting House Leader has given the report, on behalf of the Government House Leader, which indicates there were minimal inaccuracies but says that he wants to assure all of us that the Budget Details and Statistics document is indeed a valid document.

The whole point of order, Mr. Speaker, is this: It is to ask whether or not now, in fact, you must go ahead and rule on the point of privilege, in the absence of any acknowledgment from two Ministers of the Crown, who have been contradicted today by the Acting House Leader. The Acting House Leader says it is a valid document, and there were some minimal inaccuracies. The Minister of Government Services - actually three ministers, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Government Services, when first addressing the issue of driver exams, said it was a draft document - not final, a draft document - that is the language that is in Hansard. The Acting House Leader today, after investigation for almost a week now, says there were some minimal inaccuracies but, let me assure you, as members, that it is indeed a valid document; not draft, but a valid document. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, when acting on behalf of the Government Services Minister, described the same document as a work in progress. Today we have, after the investigation, the Acting Government House Leader saying it is a valid document.

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point of privilege that has been raised. My point of order is to suggest that now, in the absence of the apologies from the two ministers who are here - a third one, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, put out public documents, press releases, condemning the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for putting out improper information, and today the Acting House Leader says it is indeed a valid document. The information came from a document that we are being reassured again is a valid document.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, unless we actually have the apologies, as was said earlier by the Opposition House Leader, from the ministers, who would acknowledge that they made a mistake - now, there is a statement in this particular address today, to us, from the Acting House Leader. It says, "... we have identified minimal inaccuracies. For this we apologize."

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if that is an attempt for a blanket apology on behalf of himself and three other ministers who have misinterpreted this document in the Legislature, but we believe that unless the actually ministers themselves, who made the statements, stand up and offer the apology, that you would have no choice, Mr. Speaker, later today or tomorrow, but to continue to rule on the point of privilege; and that, barring the actual apologies, you would have no choice but to find that there was definitely a prima facie case of privilege that has been raised, on which you reverse judgement, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask you to consider that as a point of order, for your own consideration, in making a judgement on the point of privilege later today or later in the week, as you see fit.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would submit to Your Honour that there is no point of order. Secondly, I want to say a couple of other things. When the hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation spoke in this House on the matter a few days ago, he was speaking in his capacity as Acting Minister of Government Services, and he was quoting from a document that I refer to in here, and made commentary on today.

In the apology, in acknowledging we made some errors and apologizing to the House, I apologized on behalf of the government for the misinformation and on behalf of the Minister of Government Services, and on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. As I say, the Minister of Environment and Conservation was acting in an acting capacity, so I think the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is there something -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I did not interrupt anybody when they were trying to make their points, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, are you going to try to protect me from the onslaught from the other side?

Mr. Speaker, I indicated as well in this statement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in this statement that the items where we found the errors were options which could have been taken by departments. We acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that those options were not taken, so I think the government has handled this in the appropriate manner.

I cannot give Your Honour, nor should I, any advice in what you may or may not do about a point of privilege that is already before the Chair, but I would submit that there is not a point of order now before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, speaking to the point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is, indeed, a very valid point of order that has been raised. It has been raised to provide further information and clarification concerning where Your Honour might or might not decide to go vis-à-vis the point of privilege that was raised. I think anything that we can raise in this House to assist the Chair in resolving that issue, we have an obligation to, and I think it is indeed very valid. It relates to the procedure and the process of this House, so I do not think it is one of these cases where we can simply say it is not a point of order and throw it aside. It is, indeed, a very valid point of order.

With regard to the comments of the Acting Government House Leader, I suggest that his argument does not bear weight. The issue here - and nowhere in this statement today does this say here - the word "we" is used, but nowhere does it say - that this statement is issuing an apology on behalf of the three ministers that were referenced. Nowhere does it say that, Mr. Speaker. It says, we apologize because there were a few minimal inaccuracies, having nothing to do with apologies from the ministers who made the statements. So, let's not be detracted by, again, slight of hand and the fact that the word "we" is in here and the word "apology" is in here.

The whole point of privilege was that certain ministers made certain statements. I would like to emphasize that nowhere, when the point of privilege was raised, did anybody suggest that the words uttered by the ministers were done to deliberately mislead people. We are not dealing with a situation of: Was the word misleading used in an unparliamentary sense? The issue that was raised was the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Environment and Conservation - when he was in an acting capacity for the Minister of Government Services - made statements. One said it was a work in progress, and another one said it was a draft.

It is irrelevant whether it was deliberate or not. We are not even suggesting over here, and the person who raised the point of privilege, the Leader of the Opposition, did not suggest it was deliberate.

I think in the interest, again, if we are going to follow the rules of this House and we are going to have some proper decorum here, all those ministers need to do is rise today and say: If any statements that I made in this House, as a result of references to that document, misled anybody, I apologize. That is the end of it. We do not need to beat this thing to death. Yet, we seem to have a reluctance by the ministers in question to stand up and say: If I said anything that misled anyone, I am sorry for it. That is all that is required here.

It is still a valid point of privilege and it is a valid point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Unless the ministers stand and apologize, Mr. Speaker, we would ask that you are - and we feel obligated to decide if there is, indeed, a prima facie case. In fact, the Acting Government House Leader established your prima facie case today by this very statement.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke in answer to the Acting Government House Leader on the Ministerial Statement, and I talked about ministerial responsibility. I do not think that the House Leader can speak for the Minister of Government Services or the Minister of Environment and Conservation, in apologizing for some statement that was made. We had the Minister of Government Services in this House last week explaining the policy, explaining that people have to go to permanent offices. The policy was what was adopted by this government. It was only, in fact, when it was broken down by district did it become obvious to her and everybody else in the Province that the policy was not going to work.

Mr. Speaker, we know that it has been changed. We know that there may have been differences that took place, but if the ministers want to maintain that this was never the policy and that this document is not accurate in that regard, then her statements to the House are, in fact, inaccurate and she is the one who should apologize, not the Acting House Leader responding for the Acting Minister of Environment and Conservation. The minister who made the statements is the one who should apologize, not the Acting House Leader.

I think that point that was made by the Opposition House Leader is a valid one and would solve the issue for most people in this House when we see ministers opposite taking responsibility for the departments, not trying to blame it on civil servants, not trying to blame it on someone other than themselves, but take direct responsibility themselves in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take these matters under advisement.

As indicated a few days ago, the role of the Speaker is to determine whether there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege. In that connection, we will also take into consideration the point of order which has just been raised, and will rule on it all at the same time. I will consult, of course, with the Table Officers and others with whom we consult regularly on this particular matter, and hopefully by tomorrow, now that we have had a statement from the Ministry, we can have a decision communicated to the House by the Chair.

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May 7, the Official Opposition received a breakdown of budget initiatives and analyses for all forty-eight electoral districts in the Province. Mr. Speaker, I note for the record, this document was not released willingly. It was received only after a request under the provincial Freedom of Information Act, and it indicated some very different messages than what government ministers were telling the people of the Province.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself stated that an error was made by a bureaucrat and that the documents were indeed probably not accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this: Does the Premier really expect the people of the Province to believe that after a full month of careful review and deliberation by government officials, that a document full of inaccuracies, which would contravene the Freedom of Information Act, was released publicly, or will he finally stand and acknowledge that he and his ministers actually have gotten caught and been caught misleading the public once again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I asked the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - and are now in full damage control, using the lame excuse about bureaucrats bungling the process to cover up their growing and ever-increasing credibility deficit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a truly open and accountable and transparent government, there is never a question of being caught at anything. It is all there for the public to see at any particular point in time.

When I was Leader of the Opposition, and my colleagues know, we did not voluntarily receive documents from this government when they were in government. It was not a matter of course that they passed over all kinds of documents to us. So it is a little two-faced, to say the least, to get on this way in questions.

With regard to the issue in question, yesterday outside the House when I was asked by the media the circumstance surrounding it, I acknowledged that we all make mistakes. All members of the House, on this side of the House and that side of the House, today, tomorrow, the past, the present and the future, we always make mistakes. There is nothing wrong with making an honest mistake. If you make a mistake, you acknowledge it and you move on from there. That is exactly what happened, a mistake was made and we will do everything we can to make sure that, in future, these mistakes won't happen. There will be mistakes in the future. I will make mistakes, I will make lots of them. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will acknowledge that he has even made a few in his career over time.

There is nothing devious about this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is simply an admission that we all make mistakes and we will continue to do so. We will do our very best to make things open and transparent for the public.

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.

Mr. Speaker, that might very well be the end of the matter, if that were sincere and factual, but again the Premier, yesterday, did the classic example, he admitted a mistake by someone else. It is the old blame game, Mr. Speaker. It was not he who made a mistake, or it wasn't the minister who made a mistake, it was a bureaucrat who made the mistake, which is a different answer than he tried to give today.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The government has been caught misleading the public once again; no question about it.

Let me ask these questions, Mr. Speaker: Did the Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation really provide false information and make a mistake? Is that what he is saying? Did the Deputy Minister of Government Services really provide false information and make a mistake? Did the Deputy Minister of Finance, an individual who oversees the entire budget process -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- really provide false information?

The question is: Does he have that little respect for the senior public service that he is willing to discredit three senior deputy ministers to save his own face and that of his ministers who won't admit to their own mistakes, 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, as a duly elected Premier of the Province, elected by the people of the Province, and as Leader of this government, I accept full responsibility for any mistakes of my government at any particular point in time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, if we had the same type of approach from a couple of ministers of the Crown, you may be saved the effort of ruling on a point of privilege later in the day.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: Under Freedom of Information, the Premier's own office would have had a say in what information was released, either he personally or a senior staff member in his particular office. What we have now is an admission that we were provided with inaccurate information. They are trying to dismiss it as minimal inaccuracies.

In fact, are we going to be provided, Mr. Speaker, at the Premier's instruction, with a new document like this that we can be assured has been really vetted, that has had ministerial oversight and is going to provide us the actual, factual information on which we can continue to question and challenge the government in the days and weeks and months ahead? Can we expect a revised document with the factual information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - instead of the misinformation we have been dealing with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member opposite, and all members opposite, that if in fact there is any inaccurate information in the public domain, that we will change it, we will vet it. We will make sure that accurate information is available and provided to everybody who requires it. It is not an issue.

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.

Mr. Speaker, just on a note, with the Premier yesterday, with Minister John Efford, with the money for the flood, $2.2 million, I hope the Premier will fulfill his commitment to the Town of Cox's Cove and the fire department for the two water pumps you promised while the floods were on the go about a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. During the election, the Premier stated repeatedly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is attempting to ask a question. I ask for the indulgence of the House so that he can ask it in relative silence.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo just indicated that the personal family foundation that we have established for children and for charities throughout this Province is, in fact, a slush fund. I resent that and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that particular statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is well aware that albeit regardless of what, if any, comments the Member for Twillingate & Fogo made, we are in Question Period.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I would say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I have the right to speak in this House as well as anyone else, when I am acknowledged by the Chair. I would ask the member to please - I already said one time before, it is one thing to be a fool; it is something else to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members to be more careful in their selection of words. I ask the member if he would complete his point of order statement quickly.

MR. PARSONS: My comment to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that if the Premier has a valid point of order, it should be addressed and it should be responded to and the appropriate course of action should be taken. All I am saying is, let's do it after Question Period. Let's not interfere with Question Period. Then we can take all the time that is required to do that. In the meantime, any time we have lost because of interruptions should be put back on Question Period, and if we need to take ten hours to do it, then we will address it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will defer on the point of order until later.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, completing his question.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that an unfulfilled commitment caused such a stir, Mr. Premier.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. During the election, the Premier stated, repeatedly, there will be no layoffs in the public service. The ad in The Western Star, on October 17, Mr. Speaker, signed by the Premier, confirms that there would be no layoffs. Will the minister now confirm to the House, and to the people of Humber West, the Premier's own district, and to the whole West Coast, that the Department of Finance office in Corner Brook is closing?

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 will confirm that there were four people employed in the audit division in Corner Brook. There will be one remaining who will work from his home. There is one other person who worked from the government space there and we have hired, also, auditors for gasoline. We have added new employees because we feel that there is a significant amount of revenue out there that we have been informed through the 1-800 line and other means that there is a significant amount of opportunities, that we could be losing millions of dollars in audits. It was discontinued by the former government. We put one back in Corner Brook area. There is going to be one in Central, one here in the St. John's region, so we have added, basically, three new positions and one of them has gone to Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, in the documents that are supplied by the Clerk of the House, there are four positions, actually, so, once again, we see another position.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, seeing that there is a gas audit position for Corner Brook, the Department of Finance office, according to the managers and the staff, is actually closed in Corner Brook. Can I ask the minister: Where is this position going to be? Where is the office space going to be, when the actual office is closed in Corner Brook, in the Premier's own district?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a possibility that it would be working out of government space that is already there. That is an issue being handled by my department. I spoke with my deputy on that only a couple of days ago, on this specific issue, and there are two positions retained: one new one and there is one of the current positions maintained there, if there is government space to do it; otherwise, there is an arrangement that they can work out of their home if there is not government space in the area to do that.

We will be carrying on an important vital function of government in that position as auditing and we expect to get hundreds of thousands, if not in the seven figures, revenue over the course of the year from doing those audits and then adjusting them back for a period of time where somebody may not have been reporting and using marked gasoline. We think it is a revenue issue. The union had called and said before that we eliminated them and it cost us a significant amount of money. I received that in submissions through NAPE and others, and we have acted on that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I am glad to say that one of the positions is going to be in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot wait to see this ad coming out: Wanted in Corner Brook, a gas tax auditor to work out of your own home. I cannot wait. That is going to be a great ad for Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, as recently as this weekend, the individuals laid off at the Department of Finance in Corner Brook, and even the managers, were not aware of this position. Will the individuals who will receive their pink slips have the first opportunity to apply for this new position, yes or no?

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.

Anybody, in terms of the collective agreement signed and under the redeployment centre that has been set up for the Public Service Commission, every single one of the 217 people who received notices that qualify will go through a procedure, and the Public Service Commission has set up a redeployment centre to be able to put people in the areas where they meet qualifications.

We hope, over the course of the next several months, that many of the positions will be picked up by attrition. Initially, the number we had anticipated was more like 352 and we only had to make announcements of 217. We hope, over the next few months, that the attrition process will get a lot of these people who are qualified back into positions and the layoffs will be minimized as much as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, when officials in the Department of Finance compiled information for this year's Budget they made projections based on gas prices being lower than they are today. Minister, when you were making your Budget projections, what was the gas price range per litre used by your Department of Finance officials to estimate the revenue government would receive from this source?

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.

It is the amount that is budgeted there. The member should know - she served in the position in Treasury Board before - she should know that there are two aspects to tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two aspects to tax. One is a gasoline tax, that is a tax per litre that as price goes up discretionary consumption goes down and we lose revenue on the gas tax side. As it goes up there is a sales tax that kicks in, of which we get 8 per cent of that, which is 8 per cent of a higher number, but with consumption down, the total pot, there is no appreciable difference whatsoever in the total. In fact, there is an overall cost to government, quite possibly, because the ferries and the vehicle fleet in government that we operate, we have to pay a higher cost there. She should know full well, the budgeted division was in her department before. To ask a question like that when she served in the position shows what little understanding she has.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Your spin is not working.

MR. GRIMES: He does not know the answer.

MS THISTLE: Or, he does not know the answer, whatever he wants to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in this House, with gas prices at $1 a litre, forty-two cents out of every dollar goes to government taxes, whether it be federal, provincial, or both. Federal party leaders have acknowledged there is a windfall to government. The papers are full of it today, look. I am sure you read the papers, The Globe and Mail, and The Telegram. There is a windfall to government from increased gas prices that are now putting forward plans to either keep the money, or put it in consumers' pockets or put it right in health care.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Will he now acknowledge that there is increased revenues for the provincial government, and will you tell this House what your plans are for this revenue? Are you going to give consumers a break? Are you going to spend it on health care or will you put it on the deficit? What are you going to do with it?

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.

In 1991, had the former government not changed from an ad valorem tax to a per litre tax, there would be extra revenues but that neutralized that and moved it to a system that is fairer. It is a tax per litre. I supported the decision that government made in 1991 which removed that. That is why we are not getting a windfall that the federal government is getting, because their tax is on the price, ours is on the litre. She should understand that. She should read between the lines and know the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a polling period.

MS THISTLE: Oh yes, it is a polling period. He is doing a miserable mark on this one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to complete her question.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, even the Finance Minister's national leader, the leader of the right wing Conservative Party at the national level, the leader who he supported in the recent leadership convention is acknowledging there will be more revenue to government because of the increase in gas prices.

I now ask you again: Will you, as the Minister of Finance, stop gouging the consumers of this Province who are already paying too high a price for gas? Will you stop the unwarranted tax grab?

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.

The federal government has indicated that their windfall will be $230 million. Ours basically, without factoring the losses -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is far too much noise from this side of the House and it is interrupting the speaker and the minister in giving his answer.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I said in my first question, if she wants me to be more specific I will. There are two sides to it.

On the positive side, on the retail sales tax side, assuming - the HST - there is no decrease in consumption, there will a revenue item in the vicinity of $3 million. A decrease in consumption because of per litre could offset that, plus increase costs of operating our vehicle fleets, plus our ferry service in the Province, it could wipe out that and we could be in a cost neutral position here, unlike the federal government that would be $230 million to the good. We are not in the position because we faced a billion dollar deficit. We have no extra revenue because of it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and they put us in a deep hole that we have to get out of it, and we do not have the extra revenue to make up for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

I heard the Premier today take full responsibility for his government, but I have to say that the Premier was away for the past week while his ministers were behaving in this deplorable manner. Is he prepared to ask them to take responsibility to this House for their statements, the Minister of Tourism and Culture for attacking the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for saying that something was false that came out of this document; the Minister of Environment and Conservation for referring to this government document as a work in progress when it was not; and the Minister of Government Services for saying that the decision had not been made when, in fact, she said the policy was to go to the nearest permanent office for driver's exams, which is what this policy spells out in the District of Labrador West and other districts? Will he not say that his own statement, that he takes responsibility for the government, is not enough and that these ministers have to take responsibility for their actions to this House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, and he heard my answer to the previous question. We, as a government, make mistakes. We will make mistakes and we will continue to make mistakes. Every government that has ever been in this Province has made mistakes, but we will take full responsibility for them. I, the Premier of the Province, as Leader of the Province and as head of Cabinet, will take responsibility for that. If that is not enough, does the member and the other members want a public flagellation? Is that what you are looking for? Is that what it is all about?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about any inaccuracies that may or may not be in this document. I am talking about the actions of his ministers in this House. They are the ones who made the actions, and ministerial responsibility dictates that those particular ministers ought to make statements to this House and take responsibility to this House for their actions. Is he prepared to do that, or is he going to say that his own hollow responsibility - said after he was away for a week - takes care of all the blame and that his ministers can go scot-free and say what they like as long as his broad shoulders are here to say: I am responsible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very fortunate as a leader to be blessed with a very honest and open Cabinet, and a very competent Cabinet, and they are quite capable of speaking for themselves at all times. Once again, we are all prepared to take responsibility for our actions in this particular situation. I was not present last week. I have consulted with various ministers. They have indicated that there was nothing improper about their actions, and I take them at face value. However, if there is any responsibility on the government, I can only say it three or four times, that I will certainly take that responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, an honest, open and competent Cabinet, which is what this Premier said he has, would take personal responsibility for their inaccurate statements to the House of Assembly and apologize in person to the people of this Province for causing all the fuss that they did while the Premier was away in Europe last week. I would ask him to ask them to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting House Leader has taken the appropriate action and I have taken the appropriate action and we cannot ask for anymore. I would think that was satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, with the Province in any energy crisis, the Minister of Government Services has given the Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner, George Saunders, his walking papers. During this time of volatile pricing, the stability provided by the Commission is of vital importance to consumers. Can the minister tell the House what will happen if a change in gas prices is needed next week, under an interruption formula? How can Robert Noseworthy acquire the expertise in this office in just one week? Who will have the ability to regulate prices while she figures out how to restructure the office, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the contract for the Commissioner was up on May 25. We have restructured that to go under the PUB, and they have the expertise, they have experience, and they have the procedures to regulate this. The staff is going to continue to stay in Grand Falls-Windsor. The staff the previous Commissioner used, that staff is still available to the PUB.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, as I suspected, in their haste to do political damage here, they forgot to look before they leaped. They have gone and taken a piece of legislation that affects the people of this Province so gravely that they forgot to bring the legislation to the House to make the necessary changes, for these changes to work.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the government looking after its political buddies. People know the Commission is effective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: The proof, Mr. Speaker, in how effective the Commission is, is the fact that the oil companies have been lobbying to have this Commission eliminated.

Minister, is it true that this action is just an interim measure and that your master's master plan is to eliminate the Commission all together to satisfy his corporate buddies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to price regulation in this Province, this government. The PUB will, in fact, have savings for the industry. We are not doing away - but ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the consumer will pay. When you achieve savings -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: Excuse me. I cannot hear myself speak, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we will save about $100,000 on this particular move. It is recoverable from industry; but, also, you must remember that there is nothing free. The fees are always tacked on to consumers, and I would like to say for the hon. member that this structure that we are now putting in to the PUB will see effects for the consumer, I am sure. I would like for the hon. member to understand that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - there are savings that will be had here but, most importantly, that this government is committed to regulating and stabilizing prices here and being transparent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, what a stretch. The minister does not even have enough confidence in what she is doing, herself, to give a proper explanation here.

Mr. Speaker, this whole thing, there is no assurance that the consumers will see one cent back in their pockets. She has already admitted that these will save the companies money. I am not interested in the companies, Minister. What assurances can you give this House today that the consumers will get the money back in their pocket?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member is upset with this decision. It is not a political decision. It is a decision that will be very independent. It is at arm's length and it has the autonomy to regulate the gas prices in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member if there is too much noise in the House, in the asking of the question. I would ask - the floor has recognized the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - that she be heard in relative silence.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting reports of a double standard which exists amongst employees of the provincial government who are declared redundant. If you are a senior executive you go home and you collect your big paycheque, but if you are a unionized worker you stay and work the notice period. I ask the minister: Is this the final slap in the face to people this government is laying off? Why the double standard?

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 know numerous people out there, people who have contacted me, who are in the position of senior management who have to work out their term. If the member is aware of individuals, she could bring it to me. The same general standards are applied to people, whether they are management or non-management here. If there are individual circumstances that warrant any difference, certainly they will be dealt with in that specific manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the minister either does not know or he pays no attention to the collective agreement. Mr. Speaker we are hearing reports from various government departments and from school boards about laid off workers being expected to work their notice. There are some legal implications related to this, because, in the case of school boards, the entity which they now work for will no longer exist. Can the Minister of Finance tell this House if he is aware of any legal implications of this government's unfair treatment of workers, and what are you going to do to prevent this?

MR. GRIMES: Just say no, Loyola, because you don't know anyway.

MS THISTLE: You don't know.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the collective agreement - she should know, she was President of Treasury Board - it indicates that you can be paid redundancy or you can be given notice in lieu of. That is in the agreement there.

Any questions dealing with school boards, I am sure the Minister of Education is quite capable of answering; school boards that report to the Department of Education. I will answer it, and I will indicate that she should know the collective agreement. You can work your period or you can be paid in lieu of notice. That is what is stated there. She knows full well that she is asking a question which she should know the answer to, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

During Question Period, we had a point of order raised. The Chair calculates that there were about forty seconds taken up by the Premier. That will be added onto Question Period, but time taken by other speakers will not be. There are forty seconds left.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, many of the positions budgeted for in the Department of Health and Community Services are vacant positions that the minister has not confirmed if she will fill within the next year.

Why have you inflated the salary estimates in your department, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a very quick answer by the Minister of Health and Community Services

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I indicated to the hon. member, last night at the Estimates Committee meeting, that any positions that are currently unfilled may be filled during the coming year. I also made a commitment to her that I would provide information with regard to positions that are unfilled, that are currently vacant, and that information also will be provided.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A point of clarification: During one of the questions a comment was made that documents were supplied by the Clerk of the House. I wish to correct the hon. Member for Bay of Islands. There were no documents supplied to anybody by the Clerk of the House. Just so that the record can be clear, as the Clerk is unable to speak in the House.

Also, during Question Period there was a point of order raised with speakers from two sides. The general rule the Chair would have is that, when a member raises a point of order in Question Period, the side that raises the point of order, that time will be added to Question Period. Any respondents, who respond at that time, rather than waiting until later, that time will be included in Question Period.

Today, for example, the time used by the Premier, when he raised a point of order, was added to Question Period. The time taken by others, in responding, that was included in the Question Period time.

There is an opportunity now for members who wish to respond to the point of order raised by the Premier to do so.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order by the Premier. I never referred to the Williams' Foundation as a slush fund. Now that he has mentioned it, maybe he could explain to us if it was used during the election? The fact that his salary, which he donates to the Williams' Foundation, is being paid by the taxpayers of this Province, maybe the Premier should itemize and publicize the actual donations or the charities that he is donating the Williams' Trust Fund to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. Points of order have to do with parliamentary procedures. In this particular case there is a disagreement or a commentary by members on issues which pertain to matters that are outside the House. Therefore, there is no point of order and the Chair would so rule.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order regarding a matter that did occur during Question Period. Again, we are required under the rules to wait until Question Period is over to raise the point of order. I make reference to the Premier's first response to the first question. I would submit that he used unparliamentary language. He said that the question put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, he was being two-faced.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware - and you are certainly aware - that whether or not the use of a particular word is or is not unparliamentary can vary from time to time, depending upon the circumstances, the tone that was used at the time that it was uttered. I think it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the words - I have checked in Beauchesne here, I do not see the specific words two-faced here, but there are certainly lots of incidents in Beauchesne where that type of wording, saying that someone's actions and behaviour is two-faced, certainly causes a negative connotation and is unparliamentary. I think the Premier should withdraw that remark as being unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I actually withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is, in fact, no-faced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: I would like to briefly speak to the point of order. First of all, I would like to make this point. It is not against the rules of the House to raise a point of order in Question Period, as the hon. Opposition House Leader said. Procedurally, we try to stay away from it because it has historically taken - the time has been taken out of Question Period. I remember in days gone by when governments used it quite frequently to consume the time that is normally set aside for Question Period. But, I want to make it clear, it is not against the rules to raise a point of order during Question Period.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, boy!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to speak in this House and I will continue to do so. I am not going to take orders from the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I am not going to take orders from the hon. lip, the bionic mouth, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to take orders from him.

The second thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is this. Your Honour has put the time back in that was consumed and I think that should address the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Acting Government House Leader to complete his comments if he has not already done so.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not quite certain if this is a new point of order. It is certainly a commentary on the continuing point of order that I raised about the Premier's comments of two-faced.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite within the rules, and I agree and concur with the Acting Government House Leader, that there is no law which says you cannot raise a point of order during Question Period. I concur with that. That is perfectly right. My suggestion is, and the rules are, that you do not normally raise points of order during Question Period because you take up the time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the point of order. We have the Premier of this Province, who when the Opposition House Leader stands on a point of order to suggest that someone, and it happened to be the Premier, used unparliamentary language - I just finished saying in my comments that the Chair considers such things as: demeanor, tone, attitude, how it was said - and we have the Premier of this Province stand up on his feet and say: I withdraw the comment that I said the Leader of the Opposition is two-faced, and he has no face. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely disrespectful of the person again. Here is the Premier who is always talking about personal attacks on people, namely himself, who has the gall to stand up here and make this disrespectful comment about the Leader of the Opposition. It is absolutely unparliamentary, and more so than the commentary of two-faced. This is absolutely unparliamentary. If the Premier of the Province is going to get on with this kind of attitude in this House, I guess it goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that his comments in Maclean's Magazine, which we all thought were in jest and accepted, maybe he was serious about those. It is absolutely unacceptable and he should be asked to withdraw those comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the initial point of order, which the Premier has already apologized for making and withdrawing the comment, and so therefore my -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the original point of order, the Premier stood in his place and withdrew the words. That would be my reading of it, but the Chair will look at the transcripts and come back to make a ruling on tomorrow.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your commentary that the Premier did, and the record will show that he did, technically, withdraw the words two-faced. Mr. Speaker, we are into what is considered here to be done honourably and what is to be done in good faith and good intentions. Now, when someone stands up in this House and says: I withdraw the fact that I said two-faced, he has no face - you cannot look at that in isolation and separation. The whole thing has to be looked at, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is one point of order and all the commentary I have made is to that point of order.

The Premier of this Province stood up here and made a mockery of this system in which we are operating, with his comment here today. If that is the kind of behaviour we are going to get from the Premier, we stand little chance from the rest of us here if he, the leader of this Province, is going to get on with that kind of decorum in your Chambers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take all of these matters under advisement and will come back to the House on tomorrow and make a ruling.

In the meantime, I do believe that the Chair, at one point, was going to recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi and we would do that now before we proceed further.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a new point of order, but it is actually a point of clarification on your ruling about how Question Period would operate; because, I believe you stated the rule would be that the side which raises the point of order during Question Period, the time that is taken up by the raising of the point of order would be added to Question Period, so the point of order itself would not be an issue, but that any response to that would come out of Question Period.

What I would assume from that, Mr. Speaker, is that the practice then should be, if someone goes to the trouble of raising a point of order in Question Period, that there would be no ruling on that point of order during Question Period, and that no one would be expected to respond to it. Is my understanding correct, that if a point of order is raised, fine, it is on the record, nobody is expected to respond to it, and the time in raising that would be added to the end so that Question Period, itself, would not be disrupted, but if someone wants to make a point on the record at that time, they can do so? Is my understanding correct on that? Because, if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, for ourselves and for anybody looking at this, it would have to be clear, presumably, that just because a point of order is made, it does not mean it is accepted by the other side or by the person against whom it is made, but that would be the case that Your Honour is going to carry out in the forthcoming days and weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a good point that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised. I, also, would like an answer to something pertaining to that, because precedents in this House have indicated that - and historically it has happened since I came in this House - when people stood on a point of order during Question Period, it came out of Question Period unless there was unanimous agreement, leave, to continue and allow it to extend by that amount and, if there is no unanimous leave to do that, all points of order raised in Question Period will come out of Question Period. It is recommended that it be raised outside of Question Period but there is no stipulation, as I know, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that it should not come out there. My understanding is that it comes out of Question Period unless there is unanimous agreement that it not come out of Question Period. If the Speaker could rule on that, too?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is always trying to be fair to all hon. members. Question Period is the time for the Opposition to pose questions and a time for the government to provide answers. When we have points of order raised in Question Period, it takes away from that allocated time, and that allocated time in this House is thirty minutes.

We have a practice, and Speaker Snow and Speakers before me ruled that we should avoid, as far as possible, to have points of order raised during Question Period. That has been the practice of this House; however, to be fair to all hon. members - and I should say as well that this particular practice is mentioned in Beauchesne, it is mentioned in Marleau and Montpetit, and all other references - however, in doing so, if a member feels that he needs, or she needs, to raise a point of order in Question Period, then I think, to be fair, in order to prevent Question Period time from being taken up with points of order and thus taking away from the thirty minutes allocated, I believe it is fair and reasonable that if a member raises a point of order, the time that is taken up by the member who raises the order, that his side in the House will have that time which will be added to Question Period. If, on the other hand, the people who choose to respond to it at that particular time, their time will come out of the thirty minutes. That, I do believe, is a reasonable way to handle it, and that would be the way in which I would encourage the members to operate.

I would agree that the other way to do it would be to get unanimous consent. That is unlikely in a House during Question Period, so the Speaker would rule that, in future, I would encourage all members to practice that particular rule and then we can have fairness and balance in the manner in which Question Period does operate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not address this issue earlier. I am glad the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has raised it, actually. I concur with the Acting Government House Leader, that the practice has been that you do not raise points of order during Question Period. If you are talking about what is fair to everybody, I think it is unfair to suggest that if - and, by the way, it is my understanding that the purpose of Question Period is to allow the Opposition to ask questions of the government, and we only have a thirty minute time period in which to do that. Therefore, I think, Mr. Speaker, whoever causes the encroachment upon that thirty minute time should bear the burden of it.

If the government decides to raise a point of order during Question Period, it is irrelevant whether anybody responses or not. If the government has chosen to raise the point of order during Question Period, it is fair that whatever time the government uses in doing that action should be tacked on to Question Period. If the Opposition stands up on a point of order during Question Period, we should lose the time from our Question Period. If the purpose of Question Period is for the benefit of the Opposition to ask questions, if we stand up, we should be expected to lose the time. Likewise, if the government stands up on a point of order during Question Period, they should be expected, both in their point of order and to any responses that get raised, that it gets tacked on.

That is the fair process, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. Then there is no confusion about anybody out in TV land, about who made what point of order and why was it not responded to, or anything like that. That, to me, would be the ultimate fair process. If we stand, we lose the time. If they stand, it gets tacked on automatically, and that would seem to be ultimately fair to everyone.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that things have been clarified as a result of my question. It seems, Mr. Speaker, there are more circumstances than the simple one of raising a question and there may be unanimous consent for various things. Unless Your Honour is satisfied that he has given the final answer here on that, it may be something that would be appropriate for House Leaders and myself to meet with you and discuss, because there seems to be some merit in what is being said by the Opposition House Leader; and, in fact, the practice of this House over time has differed, depending on unanimous consent, at various points.

It may be, rather than have a ruling that would be subject to interpretation and perhaps some other kind of interventions, it might be more valuable - I do not know what the Acting House Leader would say about that - but it may make more sense for there to be discussions over time with the House Leaders and yourself and myself as to what might be agreed upon in terms of a framework for doing this in the future.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, I think the suggestion made by our colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is a good one. I think perhaps the House Leaders and the Speaker ought to take an opportunity to have a chat about this, so everybody is on the same hymn sheet in terms of the interpretation of what we are trying to do.

My understanding of what Your Honour is trying to achieve is fairness and balance, and there is no attempt - I think the time issue, you are handling okay. It is interventions, once an hon. member raises a point of order, I think, that is the issue here. I believe the signal Your Honour was trying to send was: Keep that until Question Period is over. Then you can get up and you can make your interventions and make your submissions and you can take all the time you want, but do not do it during Question Period. If you do, I am going to penalize or enhance the penalty for the team that does that.

That is what I understood Your Honour to be saying, but I do think the suggestion made by the hon. member is a good one, for people to cooly and calmly think about this and have a further look at it.

One final point, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Opposition House Leader. Yes, Question Periods are primarily for the benefit of the Opposition, but Question Periods are open to private members on either side of the House. I have seen it in this House when government members stood and asked questions. I do not think it has happened since the hon. Opposition House Leader was here, but I personally have seen it. I have seen it in the House of Commons, quite frequently, that government backbenchers ask questions, and I know it happens in other jurisdictions, but primarily it is for the benefit of the Opposition, no question about that, but I would not want it to go on record to suggest that government members are not allowed to ask questions. They are, in fact, allowed to ask questions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is always trying to be fair and reasonable, and certainly suggestions made by hon. members - I think, for the most part, what the hon. Opposition House Leader is saying, what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is saying, and what the Acting Government House Leader is saying, is identical to what I am saying: that we should try to be fair, and we should try to be reasonable, and certainly if it is agreeable we can continue the discussion. Maybe a future amendment to the Standing Orders or in some other way we can have consistency in the way we handle points of order or other matters raised during Question Period so that neither the questioners nor the Ministry is penalized in the process.

Continuing with the routine proceedings.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

A new point of order. During Question Period, when the Opposition House Leader was on his feet, he clearly referred to me in unparliamentary language. The same paragraph in the section he is referring to, Section 486, refers to intent and the words used. I would request that you, as Speaker, check Hansard, check the language that was used, and ask the hon. member to either withdraw and/or apologize.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do acknowledge and confirm what the hon. minister has said. I did, indeed, refer to him as a fool in Question Period. I unequivocally withdraw that remark and apologize. It was only said in the frustration of responding, I guess, to his calls across the House.

I unequivocally withdraw and apologize to the hon. minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would rule that there is now no point of order. It has been resolved.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of motion.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: There must have been a pin in the seat, a thumbtack.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 21.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province, Bill 19.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2, Bill 20.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, Bill 23.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges, Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion? Answers to Questions for which notice has been given?

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion or Answers to Questions?

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, actually it is a point of order.

On May 10^th, I laid a question on the table for the Premier to answer, and the question read like this: How much money has government spent on radio ads, newspaper ads -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In this particular place, Answers to Questions for which notice has been given, it is up to the ministry whether or not they answer the questions. The member has a right to have her question printed in Hansard and to have it recorded, and there is a procedure there for that. That is normally what we mean by, notice has been given, that they would be printed in Hansard. If that has not happened, even then, I say to the member, it is entirely optional to the ministry whether or not they rise and answer the question. There is no parliamentary procedure that compels the ministry to answer at all.

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I did submit the question on May 10^th. This is May 18^th and I still don't have the answer. It is only right for me to bring this forward in this House today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order on this particular matter. The member should know that, in this particular category, it is up to the government or the ministry as to if they answer or don't answer at all.

Petitions?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district with regard to the Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my area, and indeed people all over Labrador, the Northern Peninsula and Western Newfoundland, are not pleased with the decision that government has taken to relocate the Labrador passenger ferry, the Sir Robert Bond, to the port of Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that people in Labrador this year will see more of their money used to provide a lesser degree of service to their communities. Who would ever think that could happen in this day and age? But that is the result you get when you have politics dictating a decision instead of cool, rational, collective thinking that is based on what is most cost-effective and what is the most effective service for people in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what will happen this year is that $1.7 million more will come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund to pay for a ferry to go to Lewisporte. A ferry that people in my district, leaders all across Labrador, the Northern Peninsula and Western Newfoundland say it is not necessary and is not needed. More money will come out of that fund to pay for that vessel to go to Lewisporte. Do you know what the people of Labrador will get? They will get less service. Twenty-five less trips of the Sir Robert Bond departing Goose Bay this year than last year or the year before. They are paying more for less service.

The $1.7 million cost estimates, Mr. Speaker, and I have copies of them here, this information was compiled by three consultants at Memorial University, at the public policy division, who did a cost breakdown on what it would cost to run the Sir Robert Bond into Lewisporte as opposed to just operating a Labrador ferry service. Their estimation shows, accurately, that it will cost $1.7 million and more; almost $6 million. Well, $5.1 million, I think it is, over three years. Over $10 million in the next six years, knowing full well it will take seven years to build a highway between Cartwright and Goose Bay if it starts this year. We are looking at an additional cost of $12 million, approximately, that will come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund so that the minister can have the privilege of saving six or eight jobs in his district, the privilege of running a ferry into his district that, I submit to you, leaders in Corner Brook, the West Coast, the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, Eastern Labrador, Western do not want to have, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - and they are asking this minister to reverse his decision to do the right thing. Do not base it on politics but base it on what is cost-effective and what is the best possible service to provide to the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. Leave has been denied.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, as well, have a petition today and it deals with ferry rates. I am going to present it on behalf of the residents of Fogo Island. I will not read the prayer but I have vetted it through the Clerk and he says everything is in order.

It is about the recent increase that was announced by the Minister of Finance and this government that ferry rates in the Province would increase by 25 per cent over the next four years. If you do the compounding on that, it comes out closer to a 27 per cent increase. I have been asked by my constituents to present a petition calling upon the government to roll back this increase or not implement the increase, even though 10 per cent of it has already been tacked on. They would like to see that rolled back as well.

Mr. Speaker, what the residents of Fogo Island find most galling about the increase is the fact that the Premier on his visits to Fogo Island, prior to and during the election, promised that he would eliminate the cost of ferry travel and bring the ferry rates in-line with the cost of road transportation; which would mean probably a round trip from Fogo Island to the mainland in Farewell would cost approximately thirty or forty cents. Instead, what we have seen is the Minister of Finance stand and announce a 10 per cent increase this year. If you look at the actual figures of the increase you will see they have risen far more than 10 per cent, even though he said that here in the House of Assembly. So if you get the feeling that we feel we are misled over here, then obviously the residents of Fogo Island also feel they have been misled, not only by the Minister of Finance, not only by the Premier, but all of the PC Party because they stressed the fact that they were going to eliminate ferry rates in their election platform, in their Blue Book. Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about being misled, and the residents of Fogo Island were certainly misled when it comes to assuming that if they elected a PC government that their ferry rates were going to be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, this 10 per cent increase, that translates into 16 per cent - some way the Minister of Finance using his calculator when he talks about a 10 per cent increase in ferry rates and it actually turns out to be 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent increase - is having a detrimental effect on, not only the passengers who ply the waters back and forth between Man O'War Cove and Farewell, but it is also having an impact on all the goods and services provided on Fogo Island.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Everything that goes onto the Island comes on by transport truck, and the rates for transport trucks have increased astronomically. Today an individual who owns eight transport trucks on Fogo Island was just informed that another 10 per cent increase is going onto his $165 a trip that he is currently paying. Now he is going to be up to $180 or $190 for a trip. So everything that he is carrying aboard that truck obviously is going to increase in price because the wholesalers and the retailers on the island will obviously have to pay for that cost, the cost for the ferry. Obviously, they will want to recoup their loss. So, it also will cause the goods to go up on Fogo Island.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, it puts the plants owned by the Fogo Island Cooperative in an uncompetitive situation on the island, when they have to pay such astronomical ferry rates to be able to compete with other fish processors on the Island who are not burdened with that increased ferry rate and who are not, in fact, burdened by any ferry rate because it is only those who live on islands in our Province who are being affected. I was very surprised last week when my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will continue this tomorrow when I present the same petition again, a very similar petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to submit a petition on behalf of the parents and students in my district who are having some difficulty with the present set-up of the school and the proposed changes that will be made in September. I will read some of it:

WHEREAS parents and students in Carbonear do not want to have their school close and unnecessarily bus students to Harbour Grace; and

WHEREAS existing schools boards now cease to exist; and

WHEREAS the decision to close St. Mary's primary school in St. John's has been reversed; and

WHEREAS a new school in Carbonear is necessary;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to reverse the decision of the Avalon West School Board to close St. Joseph's school, reverse the decision to bus students to Harbour Grace, and commit funds to construct a new school in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an issue for the past while, and on Saturday past there was another giant motorcade held in the community, that took over half an hour for it to pass one particular point. It ended at a rally at St. Joseph's where a chain was put around the front of the building, a human chain, parents and teachers and students, and they voiced their concerns. St. Mary's school in St. John's, the decision to close that was reversed because there is a new board going to be in place.

Mr. Speaker, that new board has not met yet, and I understand from the minister on the radio last night, I think it was, that he would be meeting with the new board tonight. So, I ask that the minster raise this issue with the new board when they meet tonight. It is an important issue for the residents of Conception Bay North, because in the end it will ultimately affect all of the schools in that particular district.

Mr. Speaker, the school at St. Joseph's, everyone agrees, need some work. It is over thirty-five years old, but the silly part is that the students are being asked to go to Davis Elementary, which is roughly the same age, where students have to climb over desks to get into their own desk. There are no windows, no ventilation. There are so many things wrong with that school - and to send more students in there to further increase the problems.

The school in Harbour Grace, as the parents tell me, and I have been there myself, needs some repairs, and needs some adjustments before another group of students can go and occupy that school.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the line here nobody has been listening to the parents and students who know the difference of what is right for their own education. Mr. Speaker, the silly part of it all is that we have a board now that is defunct. The new board, I think - and I would like to get some clarity from the minister - assumes the official duties tonight, I think, when the minister meets with them. That board is responsible for all of the education problems on the Avalon Peninsula. Now, if that is going to be the case, Mr. Speaker, the students in Carbonear in September will not even enter onto the radar screen by then.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Just to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I will ask again, I ask the minister to bring this to the attention of the new board for the sake of the students of St. Joseph's and St. Francis and Davis Elementary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will be back tomorrow with the same, similar petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a petition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Pensioners Association, I rise to present a petition presented to me, signed by members of the Association in St. John's, Mount Pearl, and Harbour Main.

This issue, Mr. Speaker, again, while many people in the Province would believe that it has been resolved, I have checked again with members of the Pensioners Association and they would like to have the petition again presented, even though the collective bargaining issue has been decided in the Legislature. There are other issues, Mr. Speaker, other than the benefit entitlement, that are still not resolved to their satisfaction. They would like this petition presented again.

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue arises around the issue of betrayal and broken commitments, when the pensioners, leading up to the election and prior to the election, lobbied Opposition members then, members running for the Progressive Conservative Party, who are the government now, and they were assured, Mr. Speaker, that not only would the indexing of their pensions be secured - not only would it be secured - but that the Member for St. John's Centre was on an Open Line program three days, I think it was, before the election, indicating that he had a conversation with his leader and that he could tell them for sure and certain that not only would their pension indexing continue on, as it had just begun to do, with the former government, but, in fact, that it would be retroactive. It would be made retroactive to 1989, because the pension indexing had only come in, in the last round of bargaining in 2001, only became effective in October of 2003, and had only been in place for one year. The commitment from the then Opposition and now government was that it would stay in place and it would, in fact, be made retroactive to 1989. A good reason, I would suggest, for many pensioners to consider voting for the party that would make that commitment.

Right after the election, and after the January 5 address to the people of the Province, the same pensioners found out, Mr. Speaker, that the government's plan was not to go with retroactive to 1989 but to cut the pension indexing in half, right away; not to leave it like it was and extend it back for a decade, which was promised, but to cut it by 50 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, they started having meetings, and actually this petition was really spawned after a meeting was held in Clarenville, in the District of Trinity North, where the representatives of the Pensioners Association were so upset, in fact, that - the Member for Bellevue was there, a Liberal member, but the Conservative member, the member of the government for Trinity North, would not attend. They were just having their meetings and they said: Well, if they are not going to come to our meetings we had better get a petition going. They decided to circulate a petition. It has been circulated all over the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are also asking us to speak out as a result of this position -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we will address it again because it will be presented again, speaking about other issues about representation for pensioners on the committee which is delayed as well in terms of its implementation.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, to present the petition on behalf of members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Pensioners Association.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to present a petition on behalf of some of the people in my district. I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer.

We the undersigned citizens of the St. Mary's Bay area hereby draw your attention to the lack of a safe means of transportation in the Riverhead - St. Mary's area.

WHEREAS it is the duty of government to provide proper transportation to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador regardless of where they live;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government immediately put in place a plan to address this current serious situation.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, travelling throughout my district there are major road problems, and certainly St. Mary's Bay and down through Riverhead - St. Mary's Bay is no different than other parts of my district. Last week I had the honour of hosting the minister to travel through my district, from one end of the district to the other, to visit the whole area and certainly to see first-hand for himself the conditions of the road. We also had the opportunity to hold a public meeting in the Town of Riverhead, which was attended by several people throughout St. Mary's Bay representing councils, development associations, the Irish Loop Economic Development Board and so on, Mr. Speaker. I certainly had the opportunity to ask questions and, I guess, to provide some suggestions on solutions on how we could address that situation in regard to the roads. Over the past number of years, with very little maintenance being done on the roads, I guess the roads have found themselves in a deplorable condition now. We hope to be able to address some of that concern this summer, Mr. Speaker, if we are successful in obtaining funding from the Department of Transportation and Works.

The petition put forward today by the members of St. Mary's Bay want the minister to understand that they certainly look forward to having some dollars spent in the area this year to address some of the road conditions, fully understanding that all the necessary roadwork that is needed in the district cannot be addressed this particular summer, Mr. Speaker, but we intend to make a good start at that and hopefully over the next three or four years we will get to address all the concerns people have; but, as usual, when some of this pavement was put down in the late 1970s, it certainly has found that it has reached the end of its lifeline and it is an opportunity now for government to address some of those concerns.

Hopefully, over the next couple of weeks, as the minister finds in his wisdom to allocate funding for roadwork throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the District of Placentia & St. Mary's will receive its fair share, Mr. Speaker, because we have road concerns not only in St. Mary's Bay where this petition is based, but throughout the district just outside the community of North Harbour, between North Harbour and Colinet, down through the Town of Mount Carmel, out through the Cape Shore area and down to the community of Point Lance.

We also had the opportunity last week to travel into the Town of Placentia and finish up with a meeting that night with the Town Council in Placentia to address the road concerns that they have, and other issues that fall under the Department of Transportation and Works in relation to other issues that are out there that are prevalent to that department.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, it was a good day in the district for the minister to see the concerns that people have, and this petition just reinforces those concerns. I certainly look forward over the next few weeks to hearing some positive news from the Department of Transportation and Works in relation to work that is needed in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and certainly in relation to funding that would be allocated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted

MR. MANNING: I am just looking forward to funding that would be allocated to address some of those concerns that people are putting forward through this petition. My understanding is there are more petitions en route to me to be presented here in the House, and I feel honoured to have the opportunity to present these petitions on behalf of the people in the district, and certainly to reinforce the concerns they have as it relates to roadwork in the district.

With that, I present this petition today on behalf of the people who have signed this petition from the communities of Forest Field, St. Mary's, Riverhead, Coote Pond, and throughout the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and even up in Salmonier and even people from outside the district who travel in there on business or travel in to see family. The member here from Mount Pearl is fully aware that many of the people who he is fortunate to represent are originally from the District of Placentia & St. Mary's but now reside in the District of Mount Pearl. I am sure he will speak on their behalf when the opportunity comes to support this petition at the caucus table. I am sure he will be there to support the people from that area also.

With that, I present this petition on behalf of these people today and thank the minister, on behalf of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's, for his presence in the district last week, and I look forward to some positive feedback from that trip.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take an opportunity to present a petition regarding the closure of the weigh scales in the Port aux Basques area in the past week, announced by this Administration. I indicated yesterday that there were petitions. In fact, I presented one petition yesterday and said there were more on the way. Sure enough, its seems like they are coming -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are coming so fast, I cannot (inaudible) hands with them, actually. I note, they are not only from the people of the Port aux Basques area. These petitions, apparently, have been placed in stores across the Province and in places of public attendance, and the public of Newfoundland and Labrador are opposed to the closure of the weigh scales at Port aux Basques.

There have been a lot of things suggested. Someone even suggested it was political, and dare I say that it might be political, the fact that the one that was left open was in Pynn's Brook, which happens to be on the boundaries of Humber East and Humber Valley, which happened to be serviced by two Conservative members. I am sure that was not a consideration by the Minister of Government Services, that she would ever think about being political in making a decision that has such profound possible, and I would suggest inevitable, negative effects upon the travelling public of this Province. I hope that is not the case.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think this was a very ill-devised scheme to close the weigh scales. The people there perform an invaluable service to the people of this Province as well as to the 400,000 visitors that come through each year. Maybe some of the people who live in the eastern part of the Province are not familiar with how the tourism season in particular works, but there are four or five super-ferry landings per day at the Port of Port aux Basques, and anyone who has ever experienced it, we do not have four-lane highways out our way. We have one Trans-Canada Highway, sometimes little improved since it was put there in 1965-1966, some huge massive potholes that still need to be reconstructed and so on. You end up with 400 or 500 trucks and cars coming off the ferry, four and five times a day, 80,000-plus, actually, tractor trailers alone come off each year. You can imagine, in the summertime, when tourism season is at its peak, that it is just crazy from Port aux Basques to in around what they call Hungry Bear Restaurant in St. George's area, with all this traffic.

Now, fortunately, because the weigh scales was five or six kilometres outside of town, at least the tractor trailer traffic got diverted. You talk about safety; that in and of itself, the fact that they even got diverted to go in there to get weighed and checked and inspected, was a safety factor. Now you have all of these vehicles coming off and, lo and behold, they do not have to stop anywhere, the tractor trailers, until they get to Pynn's Brook, 270 kilometres down the road.

I cannot stress enough the safety factors here, and I am sure the people who made this decision, in this Administration, have not factored in what happens out there, because if you had and you had given any consideration, lo and behold, and God forbid that something should happen as a result of this mixture of the commercial vehicles with the passenger vehicles over this 268 kilometre route on what is already an atrocious highway. It is not a four-laner, it is a two-laner, so I am trying to emphasize the safety issue here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, again, I implore this Administration to reverse this decision on the weigh scales. It is impractical, it is unsafe, and if they have any conscience whatsoever, and concerns for the people of this Province and the tourist industry, they ought to reverse this decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill 6)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill 6)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 6)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Order 3, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 8)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 8)

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

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act. (Bill 5)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act. (Bill 5)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 5, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 16)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 16)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

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

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Order 7, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry. (Bill 9)

CHAIR: Bill 9, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry."

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 52.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 52 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 52 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 52 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

Shall I report Bill 9, An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 9 carried.

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

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Order 8, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre - hold on, Mr. Chairman. I do know that there were some speakers who wanted to speak on this who are absent. I think I will skip that one, if it is okay with the Opposition House Leader, and go on to the next.

Order 9, Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act. (Bill 11)

CHAIR: Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act".

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

CHAIR: Clause 1 carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enactment clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

Shall I report Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 11, carried.

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

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Order 10 , Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act. (Bill 4)

CHAIR: Bill 4, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act."

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 10.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 10 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 10 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 10 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enactment clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 11, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 10)

CHAIR: Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 10)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Clauses 1 and 2 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enactment clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The enactment clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The long title is carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Bill 10 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 8, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information. (Bill 17)

A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information." (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 18.

CHAIR: Bill 17, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information.

Shall clauses 1 to 18 -

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak again, for a few moments, if I might, regarding this particular piece of legislation.

As indicated in debate on second reading, this bill first came before this House in the former Administration. The purpose of it, as I understand it, is to make use - to have a storage centre for all health information in the Province that could be usable for humanitarian research purposes in future as and when required. That, no doubt, is a noble cause and purpose to have this piece of legislation created.

There were some concerns raised initially by the Member for Lewisporte and the Leader of the NDP, concerned about who would control the information once it was provided. The idea being that health care centres, that have all of this information about patients would make it available to the centre, and the centre and these professionals would make use of it for research purposes and so on that could, in and of itself, benefit the Province. The question was legitimately raised at that time by those members, the Member for Lewisporte and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi, that we had to make sure that there was some valid control over the persons who would head up this corporation. That concern was the reason why it never got done before. That is here now, so we would certainly be supportive of that portion of the legislation as it stands. Indeed, we are supportive of the whole principle of the legislation.

I also pointed out the last day the issue of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and I do not know how one can handle it. I guess it is not an issue, as of today, if this bill becomes law, passes through Committee and passes through third reading and whatever, because section 18 of it says, "The act shall come into force on the day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." In other words, we would have passed it here in the House but it sits on the shelf until the government decides we are now going to proclaim it and put it into action.

My concern is that there are provisions in this bill which ties in with another piece of legislation which this House has passed, called the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act which was passed by the former Administration - I believe it received Royal Assent in March, 2003, actually - and has not been proclaimed. Now, the reason I raised the question - and I raise it as a question, actually, about what the government's intention was on the privacy act. I raised it here in this House several weeks ago in a Question Period. I asked the minister, at that time the Minister of Justice: What are we doing with this act, the privacy act? It passed. It has Royal Assent. We all agreed. We debated it in this House. We amended it, based upon input from all parties here in this House. We got to the point where we passed it.

It is sitting on the shelf because we all agree, the government of the day, the former Administration realized, once they got it passed, that they still needed some time to get the agencies in the Province, that would be subject to this new Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, prepared. So, you just did not want to take it, pass it here today and proclaim it tomorrow. I believe there is actually 430 different public agencies in this Province that were going to be subject to the privacy act, including municipalities, health care boards and so on. It was a very progressive piece of legislation that was adopted. After twenty years of an old Freedom of Information Act, we had a major overhaul done based upon a committee, actually, that went around this Province and studied it and had consultations and interest groups providing information, and it reflected all of their recommendations.

My question to the Minister of Justice, at that time, was: What is the delay now? We knew that the privacy act, that someone had to go - a Mr. Hounsell, I believe, who is actually in the Department of Justice, was spending his time going around the Province preparing everybody for the privacy act to be proclaimed; had dozens and dozens of meetings. It is my understanding that these information sessions, these preparatory sessions were done. Here we are, we have come into a new year, 2004, we are now a year past having gotten Royal Assent and we still do not have the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act passed.

My question to the minister in Question Period was: Why not? Instead of giving me a reason at the time - this is why it is related to this Act and bothers me, because the Privacy Act is mentioned in this Act. His answer was: Stay tuned. He didn't say: Well, there are a, b, c reasons why we have not proclaimed the Access to Information and Privacy Act, and this is the reason for the delay. He just curtly said: Stay tuned. I am still at a loss. Until we got here this morning and we did Estimates - which, in case the public doesn't understand, is another procedure, it is part of the Budget, whereby you question the ministers of all the departments about what is in their budgets for the year. You are allowed to ask them about policy issues and costs.

I asked the minister here this morning, actually, the Minister of Justice: Have you got an answer, since three weeks ago, other than stay tuned, on the Privacy Act piece? I would certainly like to know and I think the public would like to know, and these 430 agencies in this Province, from school boards to hospital boards, you name it, would like to know: When are we subject to this act? Employers need to know.

The federal government proclaimed their Privacy Act in January of this year. They did information sessions, there were legal conferences, continuing legal education sessions on it and everything, and yet the minister tells me this morning, there still needs now, apparently, to be some further public consultation. You didn't know that three weeks ago. We didn't get that information three weeks ago, or anytime subsequent, until the issue got raised again this morning and the minister says: Well, we need some further consultation.

My question to the minister this morning, again, was: Well, that is a strange one. Number one, you didn't know that three weeks ago. I was under the impression, in fact, from talking to individuals who are responsible for the implementation of the Privacy Act, as of January, that that was all done, that they were waiting to go to work. One of the people who has to go to work in this, probably the principal person, is the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner, to my knowledge, was indeed hired last September, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Mitchell. He was hired last September, told what his pay was, told to go off and come up with your budgets, what you think you are going to need to do this. He did that. Mr. Mitchell was, indeed, given the budget by the former administration to go to work. Lo and behold! That is what I referred to in Question Period. We are paying out, for that position alone, $5,000 gross every two weeks. The person in question comes back - and I am aware of this - this Commissioner who has been appointed since last September comes back to the government and says: When can I go to work? When are you going to proclaim the Privacy Act? Thank you very much for my cheque. I am getting paid, I have a staff, I know I have some budget, but I can't go to work until you proclaim the act.

Aside from the fact that that is an absolute waste of taxpayers' dollars that we have been paying out since last September and October, because they are failing to proclaim the act, I understand the Privacy Commissioner is still, to this day, waiting to go to work, and still hasn't been told, you can go to work. He has his offices set up, has his budgets now from this government, hundreds of thousands of dollars set aside for an office, for staff, for his own salaries, and he has still not gone to work. He legally cannot go to work until this Administration decides that, Mr. Mitchell, you are going to go to work.

Now, there was no question about who was selected for the position. That was unanimously agreed upon by all parties in this House back last year. There was no suggestion in 2003, at least when I inquired , that we needed further public consultations. They were all done. There was certainly no indication from Mr. Mitchell, and I would suggest there were indications to the contrary in 2004, that he wanted to go to work, and asked the government: When can I go to work? He still has not gotten an answer.

Now, how all that ties into this Centre for Health Information bill we are dealing with here today is because this Centre is only going to work if they get access to people's information, personal information about people's health. The whole reason we have an Access to Information and Privacy bill, which you notice before was only called the Freedom of Information Act, you could go look for information, there was absolutely zero controls under our former act about personal information. We did not have any controls of any kind, and that is what the new legislation is intended to remedy. So, we end up with the new act, it is sitting on the shelf. We have a Commissioner who has hundreds of thousands of dollars that is being spent and he cannot do his job.

Now, still no indication from the minister this morning, when he is about to go to work. I guess I did get some positive feedback because he told me, he undertook to contact the Commissioner and if everything was all set with the Commissioner, and he was ready to go, there should not be a problem. I am very pleased to hear that, but until we actually hear the pronouncement and the proclamation, I think we have a problem because it is continuing waste.

We need it, in order for this bill to be proper. I think, I believe it is the Minister of Health and Community Services who has sponsored this Bill 17 that we are dealing with here today. I would like to have an undertaking from the minister that this bill will not be proclaimed until such time as the Access to Information and Privacy Act is proclaimed. I do not mean an undertaking in the sense that she is making a commitment to myself, because I asked for it, but I think it is a very practical consideration that we cannot, if we pass this bill today, proclaim it until such time as we have the Privacy Act proclaimed; because, if you were to pass this act and put it into place and have a staff who start to take this information and compile it into this Centre for Health Information, without having the assurances and the protections and the security of the confidentiality aspects that the Privacy Act provides, we have a major problem. I say this as a cautionary thing. I have no problem with the intent and the principles of the act, but I am very concerned that we are having delays on the access to information and privacy proclamation.

If it is government's wish and wisdom to not proclaim that piece of legislation, the access to information and privacy piece, for some reason, that is their prerogative, but I say you should not cause problems for not only government, because I can assure you that if this bill is passed and proclaimed and private information, personal information, in the context of today's laws, especially the federal privacy laws as well, start to get distributed and used by people, this government is in for a major lawsuit.

It is a safety issue, not only for the protection of the individuals whose information is going to be bantered about, but it is a safe, secure and a proper cautionary action for this government to take.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has pointed out to me that the government has even protected themselves in that regard because they say, in section 13, they cannot be sued. I think that would be the utter insult to people. You could certainly sue the board of directors.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, but you could certainly sue, I would suggest to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, if my personal information is used in an improper way and distributed to the wrong sources, I would certainly have a cause of action, if not against the directors then certainly against the staff of that centre who were to release it.

The bottom line here, Mr. Minister, is that we cannot have this piece of legislation proclaimed without having the privacy legislation proclaimed, if not in advance, at least simultaneously with it. I say that as a precaution. I realize and I think, in fact, the Minister of Justice advised this morning that he had some conversation with the Minister of Health in that regard. I believe it was the Minister of Health and Community Services who might have even brought it to the attention of the Minister of Justice that we had this potential problem out there and that they are going to try and reconcile it.

I am not certain, from the comments of the Minister of Justice this morning, where he stands on that issue. I think the people ought to have some assurance that this issue is understood, that nothing will be done to compromise the personal information of anyone in this Province, and that the proper process and procedure will be used vis-à-vis the proclamation of these two laws.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to speak on Bill 17, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information.

We have just been debating this bill and, as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile pointed out, we do have an issue primarily related to privacy in relation to this matter. In fact, this bill structured the way it is, is the result of the previous legislation, the previous method that was being proposed by the previous government. When it was brought in the House there were concerns raised by the Member for Lewisporte and now the Acting Government House Leader and Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, and myself, as to the advisability of making all of this personal, private information available to an organization that was set up with a board of directors was not really going to be a Crown agency. It was going to be some sort of arm's-length organization set up under the Corporations Act.

There were serious concerns about the level of control that government would have over the information - that was then government information - being given to this organization. We wanted to see a corporation in place that was, in fact, a Crown agency. That the Cabinet had ultimate responsibility for what information was made available to this organization and what happened to it. Because, ‘the and' what happened to it is also very important because the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is part of a national chain of organizations and to have relationships with other bodies, such as the Canadian Centre for Health Information. The general idea is a good one, Mr. Chairman. The government decided some years ago that it was very important, particularly in health care where the expenditures are so high and the cost of medical treatments of particular courses of actions or decisions was so great that it was important to have what has come to be called evidence-based decision making. So, if we are going to have to have evidence-based decision making, we have to have the evidence, and most of the evidence about health care is personal, private information.

I will just give an example of one of the problems that the health care system encounters by not having information. For example, in the last number of years our health care system has provided heart bypass operations. Very common. Twenty years ago it was an extreme rarity that someone have a bypass operation and use part of some vein in your leg to replace an artery going to your heart. That was very uncommon. Now they are being done a number of times a week. I do not know the exact number, maybe six or seven times a week. It is a very common operation. Everybody in this House knows someone who has had a heart bypass operation and it has given long life to many people. But, we do not know how many, and we do not know how long. We do not know how well heart bypass patients who have received those - we do not know how well they do because there is no real mechanism for follow-up. They go back to their family doctors and if something goes wrong, you hear from them again. There is no real way of knowing whether or not this procedure has given them an extra ten years of life, or five years of life, or whether there are complications down the road. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that procedure or anything like that, but we are spending an enormous amount of health care resources to ensure that is one of the procedures, which is very expensive to provide. We are now providing it as a matter of course to anyone who requests it or who needs it and is medically recommended for such and is a good candidate for it, because they do not have such other complications that they are not a good candidate for surgery.

What we have in our health care system - and I am sure the Minister of Health has discovered this even since she has been there, if she does not know it already and I am sure she did. There is a big competition in health care and a big competition for health care dollars, whether it be for a hospital or for new procedures or for diagnostic equipment or for something that is not an emergency today, but if we deal with it today, we will have a healthier population. We will not need to spend the acute care dollars down the road that we might otherwise spend to solve a problem, whether that is related to diabetes that could have been solved ten years or twenty years before by having a healthy school program so that people had healthier lifestyles and were less susceptible to diabetes. These are decisions that have to be made on an ongoing basis within the health care system.

We have questions about drug therapies and whether they work and whether they do not; questions about how many people are using the health care system for various reasons. All of this is extremely important information to allow researchers, whether they be in our own university here or within our Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. I do not really have a problem with university research, particularly our own university, because we know that they have extremely high ethical standards that have to be pass muster before any access to information is given. That does not seem to be, to me, a big issue but when you have provisions such as recognition that the information which is given to this centre can be given to someone else, and we know that is the case because the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet is being permitted under this legislation to make regulations respecting the disclosure of information to persons or bodies located outside the Province. So, not only is this information private, personal information about me or you or someone who has had a health service being given to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, this information is also being given to persons or bodies located outside the Province.

There are not only privacy aspects of it, but there are also commercial aspects to this. Do we want to ensure that this information does not become commercialized by somebody else, that they are making money off the information we are collecting here? There has to be, in other words, very significant, serious and enforceable safeguards on the use of this information. That when we have it inside government hands - and we know not everybody in government is perfect either. We found that out in the last week or so. But when somebody working for MCP has information, or someone in the Department of Health has information, they are subject to an oath. They have to keep confidential information that comes into their hands. There is a - it is not quite the official secrets act, but it is pretty close. We have provincial legislation that requires an individual to swear an oath of confidentiality. It is something that would be a criminal offence to violate. You cannot ensure everybody is going to obey the law, but the law is certainly there. It is brought home to each and every public servant, that when they have access to confidential information, they have an oath of confidentiality that is binding upon them for the use of this information.

Once you start getting outside of the government, once you get out of that public service milieu with the degree of confidentiality, the expectation, the professionalism that exists there, that resides there. You know, a lot of people talk in a very cavalier way about public sector workers in this Province. We heard a lot of that during the strike. In fact, I would have to say that this government probably fermented a fair bit of it; disrespect for the important work that public servants do and public sector workers do in this Province. I will say this, that people who are in the civil service - it used to be called one time, or the public service or the public sector - are professionals who understand that when they work for government they are working for the people. They make an oath to Her Majesty the Queen, just as we do when we come to serve in the House of Assembly. They also take an oath of confidentiality that they are not to disclose things. Let me tell you, that oath is taken very seriously. I am sure the minister will acknowledge that within her department, particularly with the kind of information that is known about individuals and their medical conditions and some of it - any medical condition, of course, is confidential. Certain ones, people are more anxious than in other circumstances to have confidentiality.

For example, people do not normally want it known publicly, or by their neighbours and friends, that they may have sought treatment for alcoholism. Most people would not want the public to know that. Never mind what the treatment was or when it took place or how much it cost. Even the fact that a person may have been a patient in a particular circumstance, they do not want that known. It is important, private, confidential information.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members, for giving me leave.

We could have it interrupted by somebody else's speech and I could carry on, but I think it makes more sense for me to be permitted to continue, and thank you very much for that leave.

The point I was making is that this kind of information is confidential and private and ought to be confidential and private, and we in this Legislature who are recognizing that there is an important role for the Newfoundland and Labrador Center For Health Information have to make sure that confidentiality will be respected when it goes outside of the strict government circles.

As a result - and I think this is an example again of how this House of Assembly can work in a positive way. When the Member for Lewisporte was sitting right here in this seat next to me, and I was sitting here then as I am now, we together met with the officials of the Center For Health Information and we met with the now Clerk of the Treasury Board, who was the Deputy Minister of Health at the time. We discussed our concerns, we discussed them with the minister, and as a result the method by which this was chosen to be done has changed.

I would submit, Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of parliamentary work to see that those who sit in Opposition can have a positive influence on what happens in government, and this is an example of it.

One of the principle effects of that, is that we now have a Crown agency that, even though this legislation is being set up under the Corporations Act, it says specifically in the act, under clause 3, " The centre is an agent of the Crown." It says in clause 3.(4), "Property of the centre is the property of the Crown and title to it shall be held in the name of the centre."

So, all of the information that is being passed over to the Center For Health Information remains, and is, the property of the Crown, and the Center is an agent of the Crown and therefore subject to the same degree of rules and confidentiality and responsibility for protection of that information as are the other people in the civil service who pride themselves on working for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the name of, only nominally of course, Her Majesty the Queen.

This legislation here will be subject to, and we had better make sure that it is subject to, and perhaps somebody can confirm that, although I do not see it here specifically, it is certainly subject to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act because there are changes here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will carry on, then, as long as I still have leave.

MR. RIDEOUT: You have leave as long as (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the Acting Government House Leader has acknowledged that I can continue to have leave as long as I speak long enough to ensure that he is able to speak right after me. I will certainly do that, Mr. Chairman, as long as I am granted leave.

I thank the members opposite, and the Acting Government House Leader, for their co-operation because this is an important piece of legislation. It is important because of all of the information that is going to be now made available to the Centre and it is important work that, hopefully, will help all of us to have a better health care system in the future, so that government can make proper decisions, so the kind of money that is spent in the health care field is spent more wisely, because I do not think we go around and waste money in the health care system. I do not agree with what was said, for example, by the Minister of Finance when he was here on this side saying there is $100 million worth of waste in the health care system. I do say, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps money can be spent more wisely. The way to spend money more wisely is to know more. The more you know about the effectiveness of certain treatments, the more you know about the way in which to provide public services - and they may not be health care services, Mr. Chairman.

One example would be the kind of money that is spent in the health care system on neonatal care, the care for infants born prematurely. Enormous amounts of money in the first year of life and continuing on afterwards, enormous amounts of money, spent for the kind of acute care that is needed when a child is born prematurely or underweight. There is a special neonatal centre set up. It costs an enormous amount of money in facilities, in staff, and for treatment of children born in these circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very simple method outside of the provisions of acute care that can help to reduce the number of low birth weight children. It has been tired and proven time and again through research and we do have, in this Province, examples of programs which identify, through the public health measures, individuals, when they are pregnant, who may need support during the pregnancy, and the provision of simple matters - a dozen oranges a week - ensuring that the pregnant woman has sufficient nutrition, has milk available to her during her pregnancy, has the kind of support that she may need to ensure that the pregnancy is a healthy one, provide counselling on matters that might assist in assuring that the child that is born will be healthy, or that the pregnancy will be positive, counselling with respect to smoking, drinking, and other matters that could affect the low birth weight for a child. It has been proven. It is not rocket science, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly science, but it is not science that takes a lot of imagination to understand that if you ensure that a women who is pregnant, ensure that the woman has proper nutrition, proper support, proper counselling, and proper access to this regardless of income and circumstances, that you will decrease the number of low birth weight babies. That is an example where policy decisions ought to be made based on the evidence, based on the information, not wait until we have a crisis and then expect to spend an awful lot more money to deal with the crisis that we have rather than prevent it from happening in the first place.

These are the kind of tough decisions that ministers are called upon to make and that we hope the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information will ensure that this kind of information is in the forefront when it comes to making health care decisions.

There are a couple of parts of it that I would like to see explained. I know I interjected probably unfairly when the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, was speaking, when we talked about lawsuits and actions. There is a provision of the legislation, clause 13, which says, "An action for damages shall not lie against the boards of directors or an officer or employee of the centre for an act or failure to act, or a proceeding initiated or carried out in good faith under this Act, or carrying out their duties or obligations as an officer, employee or director under this Act."

I have a little trouble with that, I have to confess, Mr. Chairman. It is all very well to say that we have the protection of privacy legislation, but if we are giving this information to people, or if we are giving this information to an organization that is an agency of the Crown, and we are going to protect this agency from negligence, essentially - if they negligently release information - as long as it is not willful, as long as they are not malicious, they are protected from lawsuits, I have a difficulty with that, Mr. Chairman. Unless someone can show me that the Crown itself will accept the liability, that the Crown will be responsible for the actions of this agency, then we have a situation where we are asking this body to do things, we are setting up regulations, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, has the power to make regulations determining the terms and conditions under which information may be released to the Centre under the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Act, the Health and Community Services Act, the Hospitals Act, the Medical Care Insurance Act, the Vital Statistics Act, and any other act or regulation, so all that information can be passed on to the Centre for Health Information and they are not even responsible under an ordinary duty of care to look after it. I find that problematic. I know members of the legal community who are here must find it problematic as well. It is one thing to say we do not expect - we certainly do not expect the members of the board of directors or employees to act in bad faith. We do not expect them to act in bad faith. We certainly would not want people there who are going to be acting in bad faith and are going to willfully do things which are contrary to law. Surely there must be a reasonable duty of care expected of employees, of officers, of boards of directors, that they must have a reasonable duty of care in looking after this information. I would want to see that changed, unless I can be assured that there is going to be some action against the centre or against the government. Somebody has to be responsible for the actions of the individuals who are there.

We have gone a long way in meeting the concerns that were raised by the Member for Lewisporte and I. I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader - if I can get your attention for a moment - section 13 deserves a much closer look because we do have a provision there which says that the directors, the employees, the officers are not liable for damages. There is no action lies against them for any proceeding or act carried out in good faith under the act or in carrying out their duties or obligations as an officer, employee or director under this act. It seems to me that when we set up this organization, we set up this agency, and we give them all the information. We make it all available to them and yet, they do not have any - we are essentially removing what in law is called a Duty of Care.

Anybody who drives a motor vehicle, for example, has a duty of care to other people using the highway. If they breach that duty of care they can be sued. They are sued for negligence. Carelessness is another way for it. We are saying to these people who are going to give all the information, that is now held by the Medical Care Commission or by the hospitals or by government. We are going to give it all to this new Crown agency we are creating and we are going to protect them with a clause which says you cannot sue them. I have a great deal of difficulty with that. The kind of duty of care that motorists have towards other users of the highway, we are saying to the people who have all this information that you do not have a duty of care. You do not have to act - you can be careless and you cannot be sued. Now, you cannot be malicious. You cannot willfully go out and publish documents but you can leave them in trash cans.

We had an incident a few years ago where it was brought to the attention of the public that certain information from medicare was left in Dumpsters. I do not know who ultimately had access to it but that was probably the negligent act of somebody. I can say this in the House because I am not trying to point fingers at people. Probably somebody should have made sure that information was destroyed and shredded before being put in the Dumpster. Under this provision here, as the Opposition House Leader was saying: Well, I certainly want to be able to sue somebody if my rights to privacy were violated. Well, the answer is you cannot. You cannot because as long as they are not malicious, as long as somebody is not willfully going out and broadcasting your private information, then there is no action for damages.

I think we are doing an important thing here in establishing this agency, but I think we should impose or ensure that imposed upon the people who are there some sort of duty of care. Now, I can understand if the government wants to indemnify them, if the government wants to say: Okay, well, if there is some negligence that goes on we will take responsibility and you will not be out-of-pocket yourself. The government will cover you. We will have vicarious liability at work the same way as it works in all sorts of other aspects of governmental operation where governments are liable for the acts of public sector workers or civil servants who may do something. Normally, some individual has to actually do the act that people get sued for.

I think that question has to be raised, Mr Chairman, and responded to. It may be that there is a simple explanation. It may be that the Crown takes liability. If that is the case, then I do not have a problem. I do not necessarily want to say that someone who is an employee of this agency is going to be personally liable and lose their house or their livelihood because some information - it happens that they end up being found liable for, but I do not want to have a blanket prohibition either which says that there is no action lying. If there is no action lying against them, then where does the vicarious liability lie? How can you have the agency, itself, responsible? How can you have the government responsible? I think we have a problem here and a question that has to be answered. I do not know how the government wants to respond to that or how the minister wants to respond. Perhaps she has an opportunity to ask officials on that but I am prepared to continue debating that until we have some answer to that.

I see that I have gone beyond my time with the indulgence of members opposite. If there is a need for me to speak again, I certainly will, but I see that the Opposition House Leader wishes to speak to this. Before I sit down I will say that as far as the bill goes, it is a very positive step forward. I have met with the people who are running this Centre for Health Information. I have a lot of respect for their integrity and their ability and their desire to have a first rate professional operation, and their desire to ensure that the highest level of ethical principals are followed. I am glad that the Member for Lewisporte and I were able to influence, while in Opposition, the kind of thing that this government is now doing in terms of having a separate Crown agency.

I was going to sit down and allow the member to speak. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I do support the legislation. I think it is a very positive step forward, but I do have that concern still. Number one, we need to be certain that the protection of Privacy Act does cover this and we are bound by it.

Also, the concern that I raised just then about clause 13 being the one that prohibits an action against anyone in the directors or an employee who is carrying out their duties, even though carried out in good faith, may have been carrying them out negligently to the detriment of somebody's private information being made public and causing them the kind of damages to their reputation or to perhaps even their job, employment. Somebody whose health information gets released may cause them problems with insurance. It may cause them problems with their employment. It may cause them problems with any number of things if private information becomes public that would otherwise not be public. I think this is a serious concern, if someone suffers damages as a result of that. I would not want to be a lawyer in a position where someone comes to you and says: I would like to get redress for the fact that I lost my job because somebody negligently let some information out about me that my employer found out about and now I am fired. What am I going to do about it? Isn't this agency supposed to protect my information? Can I get any redress? I would not want to have to say: No, you can't. Section 13 prevents it. Now, there may be a simple answer. I hope someone opposite can deal with that.

I will sit down and take my place and ask that the debate continue. I will certainly have an opportunity to speak again if need be.

CHAIR: The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to just take a few minutes to make a few remarks on Bill 17 in Committee.

I want to acknowledge, off the top, Mr. Chairman, the co-operation of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the previous minister in the previous government, Mr. -

AN HON. MEMBER: Smith.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Smith. I had a blank there for a second. I want to acknowledge, off the top, even though he is not here, and the previous government is now the Opposition, that on this particular bill, when the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and I raised what were legitimate concerns a year or so ago when this bill came before the House, the government took those concerns seriously and went out and prepared a new piece of legislation.

I am pleased that we, as the new administration, have taken that piece of legislation. It is good legislation and we are prepared to pass it and put it into law, Mr. Chairman.

There were a couple of concerns raised by hon. gentlemen opposite that I would like to address briefly. If the minister has more information to add, obviously she will have something further to say as well.

First of all, on Bill 17 being subject to the Privacy Act, I can advise the House and members who asked that question, Mr. Chairman, that if there is any doubt at all about Bill 17 being subject to the Privacy Act, and this Crown agency subject to the Privacy Act, then we will fix that in regulation. We will make sure that the regulation specifically says that this agency is subject to the Privacy Act.

The other question, I believe, that was raised on the Privacy Act, Mr. Chairman, was whether or not this bill, upon its passing, should, in fact, be proclaimed before the Privacy Act is proclaimed. It is no great secret, Mr. Chairman, that there is some difficulty in proclaiming the Privacy Act. I think, basically the principal difficulty is with municipalities. At some point we will reach a stage where those difficulties will be erased or the government will say: Look, you have to deal with it, because we are committed to proclaiming this act and we are, in fact, going to proclaim it.

What we will do with this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, Bill 17, we will seek advise from our officials and from Justice, and if there is any concern at all about proclaiming Bill 17 in advance of proclamation of the Privacy Act, then I undertake to this House now - on behalf of the government, as the Government House Leader here today, and with the full consent of the minister - that if there is any concern at all arising from officials, or legal advice in Justice, proclaiming this act in advance of the proclamation of the Privacy Act, we will pass this piece of legislation but we will hold proclamation until we proclaim the Privacy Act, if there are any concerns raised at the officials level in the department or in Justice. That is a commitment that we will make to members of the House.

I think the third issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has to do with clause 13. The hon. member may remember last year when the Department of Health officials provided us with some very detailed briefings on the then bill as it existed, and then the new one when it was done. The officials - and I am trying to tweak my memory here now, but I think it was something along those lines of, there are national protocols and those national protocols will apply to this particular agency. It is my belief and my understanding that those national protocols have the procedures and the protocols for the protection of information that this agency will have at its disposal.

The other thing, I suppose, and this does not, perhaps, give much comfort, but should give some comfort - Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The other thing is, this indemnification clause here is pretty standard. I think you will find it in the Workers' Compensation legislation, for example. You will find it in other pieces of legislation. It does not appear as if it has been a problem, but I am prepared to look at it. If there is a problem pointed out to us, we are reasonable. The last government was reasonable in dealing with this piece of legislation. It is a very nice piece of legislation, but it is a very delicate area, and an area that can cause grief and concern to the population. At the time that I raised it in the House a year or so ago, we were going through a very difficult personal situation. Much of that stuff you would never want to get into the public domain; yet, you want it to be available for informational purposes, statistical purposes and research purposes, but you do not want it ever to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Right, to be identified.

We are prepared to take advice on that, but my information is that this clause is pretty standard. I suppose, as well, the learned gentleman opposite - I do not hear that word, thankfully, in this House too often now, but the person who used to say it occupies another office. The gentlemen opposite know this, too, that the superior courts in this country are not above striking down this kind of a clause if the court feels it is the right thing to do.

I think there is some protection there, and hopefully some of that allays the concern of my friends opposite, but I want to make this commitment: We are not above amending this legislation further, to tightened it further, for the protection of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to do the best possible job we can in that regard, and I think this piece of legislation is a far, far cry from the original piece of legislation that came to this House, wanting to do this under the companies act, and wanting to do it without setting up a special agency and all that kind of stuff, so this is much better legislation. I am not suggesting this is perfect legislation, but we can make it more perfect in time if we run into difficulty, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few further comments on Bill 17. It seems the more you read this, the more things come to light. My earlier comments in second reading and earlier today in Committee stage, dealt with the fact of whether or not the Privacy Act was going to be proclaimed in advance of, or simultaneous with, this particular legislation once it goes through; but, again, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised it in his comments. As I reread the act, I became aware of it and I brought it to the attention again of the Acting Government House Leader that nowhere in this act does it say that this act, or the people who are going to work under this act, and in this Information Centre, are themselves subject to the Privacy Act. That is the problem here.

We know everybody has good intentions here: Create a Centre and use all this private information, personal information, for altruistic purposes, but the bottom line is, we cannot forget about the protection of the individual who owns that information, or whom that information came from. It does not say anywhere in this act, Bill 17, anywhere in this bill, that the people, the Centre, the directors, the employees, or the staff of the Centre, are themselves covered by the Privacy Act. It says here that this Centre can take information under the Hospital Act, it can take information under Vital Statistics, it can take information under Medicare, it can take information from the Hospitals Act, and put it all into this big Centre for Information, but nothing expressly says that once you have it here - it says what they are going to used it for, but there is nothing that says they cannot give it out to someone else, and controls how they use the information or prohibits the information from being distributed to anyone else. That is the problem that we have here. So, it is more than an issue of when the two acts are going to be proclaimed. More importantly, I would suggest, is this Centre going to be subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act?

Now, the Acting Government House Leader made a suggestion here and an undertaking, actually, that it could be done by regulation. I have no problem with that issue, but, just to take it a step further, regulations are made under section 16, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Now, the whole reason for having the Access to Information and Privacy Act was so that we take it outside of government. The Privacy Commissioner is going to be independent of government.

Now, if we are going to have done all of that so that we have independence and transparency and third parties who deal with all of this stuff, but we are not going to make the Privacy Act apply to the Information Centre in the same way, because now we are saying that the regulations will deal with it. In other words, Cabinet would decide how the Privacy Act could apply to the Information Centre.

I do not think that is satisfactory, with all due respect to the Acting Government House Leader, that we cause another problem if we do that, because when it comes to personal information, then, within this Centre, it becomes a Cabinet regulation how it is dealt with vis-à-vis the distribution of it. So, if the undertaking is that the regulation will say expressly that all provisions of the Access to Information and Privacy Act will apply to the Centre, that is carte blanche, not to be tampered with by Cabinet or anybody else, that would certainly be, I think, sufficient.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

There was some question about which act it would be most appropriate to amend. Should we amend this act, now that we are aware of this possible problem, or should we amend the Privacy Act before we proclaim it, or after it gets proclaimed even, to make sure that we cover off and have undertakings to the effect that we will endeavor to do that?

The remaining question is, and I have asked the Table Officers here, particularly legal counsel at the Table office, are we already covered under the Privacy Act as currently constituted? Is there a provision in the Privacy Act which says the Privacy Act shall apply to all Crown corporations and Crown agencies? Because, if that were the case, we might already be covered by the Privacy Act. According to the information I have received, that is not clear, so we do not have the answer to that. It might be a simple answer, that maybe we are already covered and we are beating a dead horse here unnecessarily, but it is certainly not clear from legal counsel at the table today if we are, indeed, covered off. Before we take this beyond Committee stage, I think, we would do the prudent and cautious thing and make sure we have covered off this problem.

The other issue about section 13, raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is about the legal action, and I would concur. I had earlier thought there was a cause of action and it was only after he quite correctly, and me incorrectly, did not understand and appreciate the consequence of section 13 and what it can do. It is not unusual to have a clause like 13 whereby Crown corporations or Crown agencies are deemed to be exempt from legal action if you do things in good faith. That is not an unusual clause to have in there, if you decide to protect the people who go in those agencies, but I do not know if the minister's suggestion of: Well, let the courts deal with it and strike it down if they do not think it is okay...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) say that.

MR. PARSONS: Well, it is part of what he said, and I do not mean to put words in his mouth or take him out of context. I do not think that is sufficient, because all the clause says is, "An action for damages shall not lie against the board of directors or an officer or employee of the centre for..." - anything they do - "...in good faith...".

Now, good faith does not look after the situation of negligence, as pointed out by the Leader of the NDP. You may well negligently, because you did not take proper standards of care, end up with somebody's personal information getting out in the public - the Dumpster case that he referred to. Now, the fact that it is in a Dumpster, somebody got it there. Maybe somebody was negligent and had thrown it in a Dumpster and did not put it through a shredder. Under those cases, if somebody is negligent and somebody's reputation or somebody's identity is made known, should they have no cause of action? Because we have gone beyond good faith. This section here protects them if they acted in good faith, so I think we should make it clear again that there will be circumstances whereby people can take an action against the agency and that this good faith is not a carte blanche for anything. So, I think we need a little bit further clarification on that issue as well.

I am pleased to see that the Acting Government House Leader and the minister certainly appreciate that these are sincere concerns. Everybody wants to do what is right here, and this is the place to do it rather than have this be passed and come into law, and we all second-guess or question ourselves later. That is the whole purpose of having these discussion in the House. It is not a case of, I want to do this and you want to do something else. Right here, everybody wants to do the right thing and everybody is on track to doing the right thing. These concerns have been raised, they have been legitimate, and I would suggest that maybe a wise thing to do, given that the concerns have been raised and they are legitimate, we should await further information from the Table Officers and maybe come back to deal with the matter further at that time, because it may, indeed, resolve some of these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I would just like to make a few comments in relation to the comments from my hon. colleagues opposite. This legislation effectively establishes the governance structure for the new Centre and that really the issue relating to confidentially of information, when I first read the proposed legislation, that was my first concern. If you will look at section 16, what that section indicates is that all the issues relating to the confidentially and the privacy of personal information will be governed by regulation. That is where we would see that. I do appreciate your comments, and I would anticipate that the new privacy legislation will also apply to the new Centre.

The other comment that I would like to make is that the new Centre will be a Crown agency, that it does report to me, as minister, and that there is a section in the act which requires the Centre to provide information to me, which I would come back and subsequently table in the House of Assembly so that Members of the House of Assembly are informed.

I will not make any further comments with regard to section 13. The hon. Acting House Leader has commented on section 13, but we will be following up on the concerns of the members opposite.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report having passed Bills 9, 11, 4, and 10 without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the committee has considered the matters to it referred and has directed him to report Bills 9, 11, 4, and 10 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 7, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry," Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the said bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 9, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry," be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice of Optometry," Bill 9.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice of Optometry," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act," Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time. It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, that Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act," be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words about Bill 11. I did not get an opportunity to in a second reading. I will not take up too much time in the House, but I do want to comment on it.

This is an important piece of law, sort of lawyers' law in a way, Mr. Speaker, but it is very important because it does affect what happens when somebody dies and the ability of their outstanding actions to survive and to carry on. We did have a very complex piece of legislation under the Survival of Actions Act which was confusing, not only to members of the public, but also to lawyers, and also led to a number of significant problems with people trying to continue actions for the benefit, particularly for the benefit of survivors where there were situations involving dependents.

We do not want to have things so complicated and so unusual that people, through technicalities, lose their right to continue with an action or to sue. We do have a number of those problems in the legal system. The Limitations of Actions Act, when it was brought in a few years ago, eliminated many of the problems, but some still remain. This is one of them. We have other problems under the insurance legislation, the fire insurance legislation; questions of what limitations apply, whether it is a one-year limitation, whether it is an eleven-month limitation or whether it is a two-year limitation under the Limitations Act. All of these things are there that provide confusion for the legal system, difficulties for the administration of justice in the courts, and unnecessary litigation.

This piece of legislation here, which is brought in to help resolve, at least this particular problem, is something that we want to fully support because it simplifies the law, it makes the law more uniform because the Limitations of Actions Act applies regardless of whether there is an intervening debt. If the action survives, the estate can pursue an action under the ordinary limitation periods that apply to the particular type of action. That is a good thing, Mr. Speaker.

The general public benefit from it, because they are the ones whose actions are important here, they are the ones whose rights are affected by this; and to ensure that if a right of action exists there are no complications related to the time during which the person dies, whether it is six months before or six months after, whether the estate is administered or whether the estate is not, all of these complications which can end up causing an individual grief. In the end, the only person they may be able to have an action against is the lawyer or the lawyers' insurance company, if they are so lucky to have a situation where at least some insurance company can stand in the stead of the person who they should be suing.

It is important that we simplify the law. This piece of legislation allows the ordinary Limitations Act to apply, so that if an action is brought within a certain period of time it is okay, whether it is brought by the individual who has a right to make the action or whether it is brought by that person's estate, and regardless of whether the estate was administered early or late. The circumstance, when you follow this, Mr. Speaker, is that if a cause of action arises under the current legislation, if a person were to administer the estate, the legislation said that you had to bring any actions within six months, from the estate, whereas somebody who didn't administer their estate could wait until the end of the limitation period, file the estate for the deceased person, and then file the cause of action. It caused anomalies in the law and caused problems for individuals trying to bring actions to get justice through our court system.

This legislation brings an end to that. It is a good piece of legislation and we fully support it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act," be read a third time.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act," Bill 11.

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

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 10, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act," Bill 4.

Motion, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act." (Bill 4)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 4, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act," be read a third time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act," Bill 4.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 11, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act," Bill 10.

Motion, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 10, An Act To Amend the Services Charges Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 10)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we move back into Committee, this is probably as good a time as any to inform hon. members of the Estimates Committees that will be meeting this evening and tomorrow.

This evening, the Social Services Committee will meet at 7 o'clock here in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Tomorrow, the Social Services Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m. in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and at 7 o'clock in the Committee Room tomorrow evening to review the Estimates of the Department of Education.

The Government Services Committee will meet tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. in the Committee Room to review the Estimates of the Department of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs. The Government Services Committee will meet at 7 o'clock tomorrow night in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Government Services.

That is the Committee's schedule for today and tomorrow.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Order 8, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information. (Bill 17)

CHAIR: Bill 17, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information."

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 18.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 18 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have had some further information provided by legal counsel, and quite informative, actually, albeit it is a convoluted way to get there. We have determined that the new Centre for Health Information will, indeed, become subject to the Privacy Act. I guess the word that we got is that it is a very convoluted way of doing it but they do have it incorporated when you jump from section to section. I guess, as Allan Fotheringham used to say on his back page of Maclean's magazine: Now that I have sufficiently ‘fuzzified' the matter, we hopefully know what the answer is.

We indeed do have an answer. The only concern we still have in that regard is that it requires a publication of a schedule pursuant to the Privacy Act before any agencies or bodies in the Province are subject to the Privacy Act. Of course government, in addition to proclaiming that act, would have to gazette that particular schedule so it will, indeed, be done.

That brings us back now - the only remaining issue, and we already have the undertaking, is that government will, at least simultaneously, proclaim the Privacy Act at the same time that they do this one here so there is no conflict between the two pieces of legislation.

I am very pleased to see that we have reached the proper conclusion here after everybody puts their heads together and comes to that conclusion.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I will confirm that I think we all understand now how this bill will be added to the schedule of the Privacy Act. That is already provided for in the privacy legislation. It will be, and therefore this agency will be fully covered by the Privacy Act. Therefore, flowing out of that, of course, is the undertaking that we will proclaim those two pieces of legislation at the same time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, have had discussions with the Law Clerks of the House in terms of how this bill ties in with the Privacy Act. It is rather convoluted, I will say, because there is a definition of a public health body of which this one is included in the act, and certain provisions of the Privacy Act apply to that, but there is also the notion of a public body, and public body includes those bodies which are attached to the schedule, and there is no schedule; but the act provides that a schedule is something that can be gazetted in The Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette, which is an official government paper printed by the Queen's Printer, and with the undertaking of the Acting Government House Leader that government, when proclaiming this act, and proclaiming the Protection of Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, will gazette this Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information as a public body. That certainly solves that particular issue.

We still, I guess, have to question as to whether or not the protection for lawsuits is there. I know, as the minister has said, it is not uncommon to have this kind of protection for a prohibition of lawsuits involving other public bodies like the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. I perhaps would ask that we consider whether or not it is appropriate in this context where what we are really talking about is the use of information. We are saying that we are going to give them the information, information that is governed by the Protection of Privacy Act, and we are going to say to them that government officials do not have this protection but we are going to give you the information and then we are going to give you that protection from being sued. I still question that. It may be a matter of government policy to do that to all agencies and Crown agencies. I noted in the Protection Privacy Act itself, the same kind of protection is given to the Citizens' Representative, for example, and his staff, for actions carried out in the performance of their duties. It is not uncommon, as the Acting Government House Leader has said, to do that.

I wonder out loud, Mr. Chairman, whether we should be doing that in the case of the kind of information we are making available here. Obviously, we anticipate that employees are going to act in good faith, but the question is: What about the case of negligence? What about the case, such as I mentioned, where you have had experience, at least, or some concerns raised, about important private health care information ending up in a Dumpster outside the office of the Medical Care Commission a few years ago? That is something that is probably something that happens very infrequently, Mr. Chairman, but the question is: What kind of protection and what kind of recourse can a member of the public have if something like that were to happen?

A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information." (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 18.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 18 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 18 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 to 18 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 17, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 17 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Order 6, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act to Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 7)

CHAIR: Bill 7, An Act to Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 7)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say in response to this bill, Bill 7, this is a sad day for students in our Province. The Finance Minister, yesterday, said in this House that he was under no obligation to put forward this bill and let it be included in the Income Tax Return for 2003. He said, "We had no obligation to do so. I wrote Canada Customs and Revenue Agency at the time and I indicated that we would, for this year, honour the commitment they made in their Budget." Well, I would say to this House that after consulting with students and deciding on the route to go, after consultation we notified Revenue Canada that this would form part of the Income Tax Return for 2003. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that the wheels were already in motion and there was very little he could do to stop those wheels in motion.

Mr. Chairman, when you look at Bill 7, I would start off by saying that this Province could make no greater investment than the investment that they would make in students. I think most people would say that is true. When you look at this particular bill, what was the advantage of this bill, Bill 7? Who are the people that it would serve?

There were two different rates based on this bill. We had one rate for disabled or single parent students. They would be able to have a base rate of 30 per cent and everybody else would have 20 per cent. Now we know that disabled students who are beginning to pay back their student loan in this Province are not going to have this advantage. We also know that single parent students who are beginning to pay back their student loan in this Province are not going to have this advantage.

When you look at Bill 7, it is considered to be a one-day wonder, because look what the new government has included in this bill. It says: This tax credit would be available for the 2003 tax year only. Isn't that scandalous! When you look at the background of why this happened last year. It said: This tax credit would be unique in Canada. It was groundbreaking and it is designed to help relieve the debt load of students who have graduated and are working in this Province. The measure would only apply to the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of the student loan. That was the only portion of the student loan that we had any flexibility to alter. We could not do anything with the Canada Student Loan portion, that was a federal government decision. We, as a provincial government, the former Administration, decided we would do something that would help the students of our Province who decided to work in Newfoundland and Labrador and start their careers, start their families, and start to contribute to the overall economy of our Province.

Now, I have heard people snicker on the other side of the House saying: What is the advantage of this income tax credit? For instance, if a person with a taxable income of $40,000 paid $1,000 on his or her principal of the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan, guess what their tax credit would be? One hundred and twenty-five dollars. Is $125 any good to go back into the pocket of a young student who is out trying to make their way in society and getting a job in this Province? That is a $125 that the Government of Newfoundland previously was not going to hold on to. They were going to put it into the pockets of students, and I would say parents. There are many parents - when I look around this House today, all of us have or are already after putting young people through university or post-secondary education. When you consider the expense of doing that, to get a break from the government who believes in young people, to put money in their pockets - and most young people will probably pay more than $1,000 on their student loan in the run of a year, once they get a job and get out to work.

We have a government here today that decides: Well, I guess we are going to have to put that act through now because the previous government brought it in. They notified Revenue Canada it was going to take place. The wheels are in motion. We have no choice but to bring it in, but we are only going to bring it in for this one year. I think that is shameful, shameful! I cannot understand it myself.

When you look at the new government's Blue Book, they pledged to the people of this Province that they would reinvest savings from population decline into programs and services to ensure that all children have access to quality education. It was only a few days ago we heard that with school board consolidations, they are not putting any money back into education. It is going right on the deficit. They are fixated on the deficit because that was the first order of business in their Budget. It was not the health and welfare of our people in this Province. It was eliminating the cash deficit. They also said one of their key commitments for post-secondary education was eliminate and reduce taxes for low-income students. Now, a 360 degree turn, because by cancelling this bill they are reneging on their Blue Book. That is another broken promise.

I want to talk about Bill 7. Bill 7 was a series of things that the previous government did for young people in this Province. In fact, we saw education as such a priority that we had a booklet designed just for education highlights in the Budget 2001. I think if you check with any young person here - and we have them here in this House of Assembly, who work as Pages here in this House of Assembly. They will tell you that they are pleased with what the former Administration was able to do for students. We saw, our former Administration, students as being very important, and their education being very important. This particular government, since they have been elected - and the Budget would echo the same - there has been absolutely nothing in this Budget for young people. In fact, much has been taken away.

We saw that last week, when the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and Responsible for the Status of Women, stood up in this House. When I questioned her, and I asked her if there was going to be a cut to the student summer employment program, she would not admit it here in the House, but when she was questioned by the media, she had to admit to the media: Yes, there is a cut.

I think that is very important for you to realize here in this House today. Where is this cut going to take place? It will not even be noticed in St. John's. If you are going to cut student employment, it will not be noticed in St. John's. Would it be noticed in Bonavista South? Would it be noticed in Bonavista North? Would it be noticed in Windsor-Springdale? Would it be noticed in Grand Falls-Buchans? I can say, yes, it will be. Would be noticed in Exploits? Yes. I do not think it is going to be noticed in CBS. It probably will not be noticed in Mount Pearl. It will not be noticed in St. John's Centre. I can tell you, being a former Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary Education, that 75 per cent of all the student summer employment, guess where it took place? In rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where the employment took place.

I am not surprised that government made this move, because the majority of people sitting around the Cabinet Table are from urban Newfoundland, and not Labrador. They are not from Labrador. How can you expect ten Cabinet Ministers to push forward the student summer employment program for rural Newfoundland and Labrador when they are not affected themselves? They are not affected themselves. There are enough people in this House, who represent rural Newfoundland and Labrador, to speak up and I do not know why they are not speaking up for their constituents. We have private members of the government who are nodding and agreeing to everything this government is putting forward. I would like to be able to ask some of those members: Are they satisfied that only one in three students in this Province will get a job this summer? Are they satisfied with that? Are they getting phone calls, like I am, from students in my district looking for summer jobs? I have to tell them, that this government sees no priority for young people. They have already reduced student summer jobs by one-third.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

I am sure that I will have an opportunity, very soon, to expound on the Budget decisions made by this government that are going to impact the students of this Province negatively.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to make a few comments with respect to Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, yesterday, and I would like to restate a couple of the comments again for the record.

Again, Mr. Chairman, what we have seen here today, I believe, is a tremendous amount of progress and co-operation, both in the Committee and in the full House, in terms of dealing with some issues, having some commitments made, about proclamation of an Act for the Centre for Health Information, making sure that we are consistent with new legislation for Freedom of Information, understandings given and taken with respect to the Acting House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, the Leader of the NDP, and some good work done. It is because, basically, there is very little, if any disagreement, with the content of the legislation that is being debated and the bill, and a willingness by everyone in the House to see the issues proceed and move further in the process, so that they can actually become law.

That is not the case with Bill 7, Mr. Chairman, because we, as the Official Opposition - as my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans just pointed out - have very serious problems with the whole nature, intent, spirit and content of this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, again, as I mentioned yesterday, it goes to several issues, one of them being the credibility of the minister introducing the bill, being the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, who, in making his comments when he has spoken to this bill before, has tried to misrepresent it and suggest to people - I am not even sure that anybody in his own caucus, Mr. Chairman, believed the story that he put forward. It was incredulous, to say the least, and I do not know why anyone would do something to themselves and to their own credibility by trying to make people believe the story that he told.

The story that was told by the Minister of Finance, in asking us to support this particular amendment to the Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 7, was that this new government was creating and bringing into place a tax break for students, that it was an initiative that they were bringing forward, and that, in fact, there had been no commitment given by the previous government, the government that I have the great fortune of leading, with my colleagues here on this side, and that this was this new government, with an initiative, giving students a break.

I think anyone who has followed the debate, even in their own caucus, realizes that nothing, absolutely nothing in this world, nothing on this planet, could be further from the truth. What they are doing is, they are introducing a bill to do away with a program, to abolish a program, that the Liberal government brought in last year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I will go further. If the tax forms were not already prepared for the taxation year 2003, and had not already been filled in by the students claiming this tax break that the Liberal government announced in the Budget last year, and that the Liberal government put in place, then this government would not be presenting this bill, because they are presenting a bill to say: Here are the programs that the former Liberal government gave you. We know that you have already filled in the form, and because there was an election, and because the bill did not actually get passed into law, we have to retroactively bring it in so that the law, the new bill, legitimizes the tax form that the people have already filled out.

Then, the other thing it does is, it says: By the way, you know the tax form that you just filled out for last year, that gave you a benefit, and gave you, a student who has already graduated, a former student who is already out there in the workforce, or still seeking employment, and now paying back your loan, the tax break that you received on your 2003 form, what this bill says, instead of what the Finance Minister tried to make people believe - and why you would be so crazy as to try to make anybody believe it, I do not know; why you would destroy your own credibility in even making the statement, I do not know - but what the bill says, instead of saying this is an initiative that we are proud of, that we believe in as Conservatives, that we believe in as your new government, and that we want to proclaim for students, it says: The tax form that you just filled in, it is the last time that you will ever do it because we are abolishing the program.

Now, can you believe that we are supposed to sit in the Legislature, and stand when we get recognized and get an opportunity to speak, and we are supposed to deal with a Finance Minister who would say something that is that so far at odds and difference with the truth.

It is a question that the people of the Province are asking themselves, by the way, and I can tell you that in the Southern Shore, in Ferryland District, where the member was highly respected - now, notice the word I just said - was highly respected. He has been elected since 1992, elected first in a by-election and in every election since. Now, I know a lot of the same people that he knows. We are involved in certain activities together, sporting things, hockey, those kinds of things. We actually used to play on the same team, both competitively thirty years ago, when we were here in University and in what we call recreation hockey since then. We will not call it old-timers. We do not call it old-timers; we call it recreation now. So, never mind, you do not want to give away your age and all that kind of stuff, and let people know you cannot really do it any more but you are still out enjoying it.

We know a lot of the same people, and all those people who were proud of this member and said, this is a person with integrity, they are now saying, by the way - as a matter of fact, they are calling him and they are telling me they are saying - we cannot believe it is the same person. We cannot believe it is the same person who, all of a sudden, would become a puppet to the Premier. For example, Mr. Chairman, during the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would watch his language and show some respect to other members of the House. It is happening on a continuous basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, by all means, I understand that the word that I just used, in my understanding, has been ruled to be parliamentary before. It is parliamentary. It is properly available for use. I have not used the word myself, Mr. Chairman. I am recounting for members of the Legislature phone calls to the member himself, from strong supporters to him who are so surprised and disappointed. Mr. Chairman, in this Legislature -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, in this Legislature the members opposite, members like the Member for St. John's West, who is having a few words to say today even though the microphone is not on and she does not want to stand in her place and brag about why she is supporting this bill. I do not see her standing up and saying why she is so proud to do away with a tax break for students who have the highest student debt ever recorded in the Province. They had a tax break for one year, and now there is a bill saying it is cancelled. I do not see her standing up telling people why she is supporting that, but she does not mind saying a few words to try to distract me; which will not happen, Mr. Chairman, as I make the point. I believe this, she would not stand in this Legislature and try to describe this bill as a benefit for students that is being presented by the Conservative Government. I am sure she would be straightforward and honest enough with the people in St. John's West to say: It was a program that was there for one year but we have decided to take it away. Because that is what this bill does, Mr. Chairman.

Meanwhile, you have a Finance Minister who has lost his credibility completely, and continues to lose it, and will not even get up and say with this piece of legislation that there was a program - even if he said, Mr. Chairman, there was a program that we would like to keep in place but we cannot afford it because we are bankrupt. Now, that is the speech they use for most of it, or at least that is the speech they use sometimes. On this one, Mr. Chairman, there is not even an attempt at that. He got up and said: This is a program we are bringing in to give the students a tax break. Then he omits the fact that it is a tax break that was already printed on the tax forms that, by the way, the students have already applied for. They had to fill out their tax forms by the end of March. It is already applied for. This just brings in the legislation to make sure that it becomes legal when they give it to them.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

By all means, I will gladly come back at another point in debate and continue as we move on with this particular discussion.

CHAIR: The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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 17 passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 17, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information, passed without amendment and asked leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received? Now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, third reading of a bill, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information. (Bill 17)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 17, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information. (Bill 17)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17).

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do rise until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do rise and adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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