MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Gander; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; and the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this House today to congratulate Them Days Inc. on their thirtieth anniversary celebrations that are being held, as we speak, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay today, Mr. Speaker.

Them Days staff and committee have worked hard over the last thirty years preserving and documenting old ways and early days in order to keep the history - the rich history, I say, Mr. Speaker - of Labrador alive. This is done by recording, documenting, researching and performing oral and written interviews about issues of importance to the people of Labrador. The people of Labrador have come together to share their stories, photos, and have contributed to the success of this organization.

On March 15, 1975, Dr. Doris Saunders was hired as the editor and worked hard for more than twenty-five years ensuring this project continued. She is to be commended for her time and dedication to such an important part of our rich Labrador heritage.

Them Days began as a Labrador Heritage Society project in 1973, with the intention of producing a single publication. In 1984, Them Days Labrador Archives began. Quarterly publications are available throughout the Province. Them Days continues today to be a non-profit organization, and I ask all members to wish them every success today on their anniversary, and success in the years to come.

Thank you very much, 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 rise today to recognize a group in my district who have worked hard to ensure that today's technology can be utilized in rural Newfoundland to educate the youth of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of the local volunteers and the recent injection of funding from the federal government, St. Francis school in Harbour Grace can now use a state-of-the-art greenhouse to craft together entrepreneurship, learning technology, and the agricultural industry. Mr. Speaker, the twenty-year-old greenhouse has been used to grow everything from shrubbery to tomatoes. They have recently partnered with Spruce Hill Research and Experimental Farm in Heart's Content to begin teaching young people about the farming industry.

Mr. Speaker, the greenhouse will now become a focal point for getting students involved in entrepreneurial opportunities in the agricultural sector in the area. Other schools in the region are also involved in the project through Web casting in classes such as Biology, Chemistry and Enterprise. In a very short time this program will be available on the Web, giving access to students worldwide. Mr. Speaker, the recent development of these facilities shows the agricultural excellence which exists in the Conception Bay area, and I am very proud that these facilities will continue to teach our youth its economic importance in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to congratulate St. Francis School in Harbour Grace and all involved in working toward this initiative for their hard work in ensuring that the agricultural industry remains strong in the Carbonear-Harbour Grace District.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the life-saving accomplishments of two brave and dedicated Newfoundlanders.

Mr. Speaker, just recently Mr. Howard Greene and Clayton Stratton of Gander were recognized by the Provincial Lifesaving Society for their efforts in saving the life of Mr. Percy Chaytor in July, 2000, who had slipped and fell into the cold and churning waters of the Gander River.

Mr. Greene, having seen the mishap, attempted to reach out without falling into the river himself. His many attempts failed until Mr. Stratton arrived on the scene in a small boat. Through some creative work by both of those heroes, they were finally able to reach Mr. Chaytor. Upon getting close enough to help and keep an eye on their own safety, they risked their own lives by leaning over one side of the boat in an effort to balance it while Mr. Chaytor climbed aboard. These efforts of five years ago have not been forgotten, as these fine gentlemen have been honoured by the Lifesaving Society of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in congratulating Mr. Howard Greene and Mr. Clayton Stratton of Gander for their heroics in a time of great peril.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I rise today to recognize two students from my district, Brian Keeping and Nicholas English who attend Lake Academy in Fortune. Brian and Nicholas are art students and were named among the top fifty inventors in Canada for their efforts in the Scholastic Young Inventors' Contest.

The Scholastic Young Inventors' Contest ask student to think outside the box when entering the competition. They can consider all sorts of machines, objects or gadgets - either outrageous or realistic - that could meet a variety of needs. Once a student settles on an idea, they then sketch and label their creation and write a short paragraph describing how their inventions work.

Brian's entry was an automatic hammer that could be activated by pressing a button. Nicholas submitted his idea for a magna hand glove which can lift large objects. Both entries caught the judges' attention and for their efforts, Brain and Nicholas received a microscope, four science books and a science resource book for their classroom.

Art teachers at Lake Academy, Andrea Stuckey and Cecil Forsey, encouraged their students to participate in the Scholastic Young Inventors' Contest.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Brian and Nicholas on being named among the top fifty inventors in Canada and expressing our appreciation to their teachers for working with their students in taking advantage of this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how our teachers make a difference in the lives of their students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a student from my district whose work has recently won a provincial speak off.

Adam Lynch, of Ascension Collegiate won a speak off presented by the Dalton Assembly Fourth Degree Knights of Columbus out of St. Francis High School in Harbour Grace on March 20. Adam placed first in this competition and went on to represent the Dalton Council in the provincial speak off.

Mr. Speaker, at this Province-wide competition, held in Grand Falls-Windsor at St. Joseph's Parish Hall on April 23, Adam, once again, placed first and earned a trophy which will be kept in his school for one year. He also won a plaque and a cheque in the amount of $500.

Mr. Speaker, Adam's parents, Calvin and Sherry Lynch of Upper Island Cove are so very proud of their son's achievements. The speech entitled: A Response to Margaret Wente's Article, was a tremendous piece of work for this budding scholar.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Adam Lynch on his recent achievements in public speaking, and in thanking the Knights of Columbus for providing the opportunity for students like Adam to develop their skills in the field of public speaking. Maybe a student like Adam one day will take up the very seats we occupy here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of a new wage subsidy program that has just been introduced by the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment - NL Works.

NL Works offers profit and not-for-profit employers with a wage subsidy to create new positions. This, in turn, provides individuals with valuable work experience and skills to improve their attachment to the labour market. The program is open to income support clients who are non EI eligible or unemployed, or under-employed individuals who are non EI eligible and actively seeking work.

Mr. Speaker, NL Works is a combination of the department's three separate wage subsidy programs streamlined into one core program. With it comes a number of improvements for clients and employers.

For this year, government has invested $1.8 million in this program, a $250,000 increase from last year's funding of wage subsidy programs. This increased funding will see approximately 450 new positions for clients this fiscal year.

One core wage subsidy program is less confusing for clients since it involves a single application process.

The program also offers increased flexibility in the duration of wage subsidies. Employers choose the number of weeks they want to apply for under the seasonal and long-term components. This change allows NL Works to be responsive to local labour market conditions and needs. The new program also offers a higher wage subsidy rate which may encourage employers to pay higher wages.

Combining our wage subsidy programs into one program is a decision based on numerous surveys and consultations with employers and other participants involved in our previous wage subsidy programs. Feedback from clients, employers and HRLE staff on how we can improve our wage subsidy programs form the basis of NL Works.

Mr. Speaker, NL Works is one example of the overall redesign of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment in an effort to simplify and improve services for clients.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, we would be in a position to respond or the critic would be in a position to respond, but I guess somehow the wires must have gotten crossed and we did not receive an advanced copy or any copy of the minister's statement. So we would reserve any comments we might have until we have had an opportunity to read it. We would reserve the right to comment at that time.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Unless the Government House Leader has some other suggestion that we have a formal opportunity to respond set down, I could respond now if there is not going to be a formal opportunity at a later date.

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

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

It is common practice and courtesy that any ministerial statements in the House dealing with a direction or policy of government, obviously, be provided to the Opposition and the New Democratic Party at least, no later than, one-half hour before. Obviously, there has been a mixup in this case, where it was not provided. I can only offer my apology because this has been a standard practice that both sides have operated under.

So, if we take in the suggestion made by the Leader of the NDP and by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, we will make sure you have copies. It will get to you now, you will have them. When you feel it is appropriate to make a formal reply, we will certainly provide the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the hon. House today to inform hon. members about the success of a rising local high-tech company, Cathexis Innovation Inc. of St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am just going to ask if we can hold off the ministerial statements. Obviously, you did not get the two ministerial statements today.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, relax, there is no ill motive or ill intention to why you did not get them.

MR. REID: That is what you say.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly what I say, because I know it to be the truth, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. If we can, we will just suspend that statement for today and we will get it tomorrow. I will find out what happened.

I do want to assure the House, and certainly my colleague the Opposition House Leader, that obviously it was just a mixup today, and I appreciate you saying there is no problem.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Natural Resources Minister was scheduled to provide an update to the media after the meeting with Abitibi on Friday here in St. John's, but it was cancelled at the last minute. Since then we have learned that Abitibi asked government for approval to develop two power projects on the Exploits River, with the benefits going to the Stephenville operation, and the minister informed the company that the matter would have to be presented to Cabinet. On May 4, when I questioned the minister on this very issue, he stated that those discussions would not take place until Abitibi would guarantee government a two-machine operation in Grand Fall-Windsor.

I ask the minister: Did you get the commitment from Abitibi for the two machines at the Grand Falls mill or did government sell out to the company, because layoffs happened yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me correct two things. First of all, there was no scheduled media update. That was provided yesterday out there. As a matter of fact, I was prepared to answer questions on it yesterday, but they were not forthcoming.

Let me say this to you, the member opposite - this is a serious issue for the people in Central Newfoundland - put forward a private member's motion about, will we uphold the spirit and intent of Bill 27 which requires a two-machine operation in Grand Falls-Windsor in 2010. We haven't gotten to debate that motion yet, for a very good reason: because government is committed to upholding the legislation, Bill 27, which requires the company to operate a two-machine operation in Grand Falls-Windsor until 2010. Government has informed Abitibi and the public and this House, that if they fail to live up to that legislation our only obligation and responsibility would be to revoke the licenses associated with that legislation, which represent about 60 per cent of the wood supply for Abitibi.

On the power purchase agreement, it was only two or three weeks ago that the Leader of the Opposition was up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister - I know it is a very important question - if he could complete his answer quickly.

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

Two or three weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition was condemning myself and the Premier for not moving forward on trying to solve issues with Abitibi. What we announced yesterday was that we had begun negotiations with Abitibi with respect to a potential power purchase arrangement - and I emphasis potential power purchase arrangement - for two remaining projects on the Exploits River, for their operations in Newfoundland and Labrador which include Grand Falls and Stephenville, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the Minister of Natural Resources was taking a tough stand with Abitibi, as he should. His direct quote in Hansard on Wednesday, May 4, was: We are not into any discussions or formal negotiations with Abitibi on power because, first and foremost, before we would even consider that, Abitibi must commit to a two-machine operation at Grand Falls, and, until they do, we will not be discussing this with Abitibi.

Yesterday, the minister broke his word. Your discussion with Abitibi on Friday was about power for the Stephenville mill, and you have since directed Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to begin negotiations with Abitibi for a power purchase arrangement on the Exploits River.

You say you are protecting our resource and our jobs, when, in the public and in dealings with the company, you are dancing to their corporate drum. Minister, you are double-talking. How can the people of Central Newfoundland believe you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear and emphatic. There is nobody on this side, and in particular myself, responsible for the file on behalf of the government, who is dancing to Abitibi's drum. The only drumbeat that we wish to dance to is to save the current operations in Grand Falls-Windsor and in Stephenville so people can go to work each and every day. That is the only drumbeat that this government is interested in, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what I did say yesterday, and what I will continue to say, is that we will do whatever we have to, within reason, what is reasonable and what is fair for the public at large and for the communities affected, to ensure that there is a viable newsprint industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I did say yesterday, so the member for Grand Falls-Windsor understands clearly, the negotiations with Abitibi with respect to two power purchase arrangements are for their operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, which include Stephenville and Grand Falls. That is the fact of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds members that both the last question and answer exceeded the usual one minute. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that commitment includes the two-machine operation.

This question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Just over a week ago, Abitibi-Consolidated announced that there would be labour reductions at the Grand Falls mill, and yesterday fifty-six people got layoff notices with no incentives from the company for early retirements.

Last year, there was a five-year contract signed with Abitibi and its workers, and one of the key components of that contract was job security and bumping rights. Without those bumping rights, people were sent home yesterday and others were left to grieve the layoff notices.

I ask the minister: Is she aware that there had been no consultant with the union prior to yesterday regarding the reduction of up to 150 mill employees and close to the same in the Woodlands Division?

I would also ask the minister: When will she get involved and investigate this matter, both with the company and the union, and can she assure workers at the Grand Falls mill that all aspects of the contract will be upheld?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her questions. It is a very serious issue when we deal with this number of layoffs in any particular area of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is labour legislation that needs to be followed, and I just want to assure the member that the Labour Relations Agency will work within the Labour Standards Act to make sure that the process was followed appropriately and any steps necessary will be taken in this matter.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked the minister to commit full accreditation of all mammography units in the Province but he did not see this as an important issue to women's health in Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask him today to tell women which mammography units are not accredited in our Province, so that they can make the choice on where they want to have their testing done.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The President of the Canadian Association of Radiologists, the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Radiologists, and radiologists from the Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority who sit on the board that does accreditation, all have indicated that there is no danger. They are safe for anybody to receive one.

Some of the problems encountered, I will make reference to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: If they would like to hear an answer, we just committed to put four new digital ones in place. Some of the problems in full accreditation are space requirements that do not affect the safety of the service provided. That has been indicated by all authorities.

I am not an authority on it, but I do take the advice of the Canadian Association of Radiologists, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Radiologists, and the doctor from the Regional Integrated Health Authority who sits on that board that gives accreditation. I take their advice a lot more than I would take it from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was not about safety. It was not about mammography units blowing up. It was about giving women a choice of knowing which machines are accredited and which ones are not, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, obstetrical services in this Province are being jeopardized by government's lack of stability and commitment to health. We have a report that recommends, right now through the Hay Group, the closure of obstetrics services in three rural hospitals in the Province. We have a very serious situation at Gander hospital where there is no obstetrician right now. Women's health is being compromised, and I ask the Minister for the Status of Women: Will she intervene on behalf of the women of this Province so that they have a dependable, quality health-care service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The obstetrician who has left Gander has created a void at the moment. There are going to be locums who provide that service. For that Gander hospital, they have recruited two who are going to be here next month and up in the practice in Gander, in that area.

The Regional Health Authorities are providing the best quality service. They are active in recruitment. In fact, the commitment is given. They are coming here next month in Gander and they will back to two. They have only had one just recently. Unfortunately, the choice is not always the Integrated Health Authorities. If someone leaves, for whatever reason, or if someone decides they want to go somewhere else - there are a variety of reasons why somebody may leave, but they are trying hard on the recruitment effort. They are very successful in getting two now, and they are going to be here next month. Hopefully, the service that will be provided will be up to the numbers that have been traditionally allocated in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister for the Status of Women is not speaking up for the women in Gander and on the Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that patients of prostate cancer are being delayed for radiation treatments for up to six months. I ask the minister if he can tell me why there is such a delay for this treatment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Regional Integrated Health Authorities are working with all aspects in waiting lists. Why it is specifically delayed for that period in prostate, I cannot give her a specific answer. I will follow up on that answer, but we do know that we made significant commitments in our Budget this year to improve and reduce - actually in surgeries - reduced by 30 per cent in money committed this year, when the biggest infusions of money in health care in the history of our Province, in numerous areas also, not only in that - in proper prevention and proper promotion aspects is our biggest infusion in public health also.

So we have done a whole array of things in this year's Budget to address some of these specific problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions were not related to surgery, I say to the minister, it was related to radiation treatment. I have had a number of inquiries from patients from rural areas who have been waiting at least six months, showed up in St. John's ten minutes before their appointment, were told that their radiation treatments were being cancelled.

I would like to ask the minister: Is it due to wait lists? Is it due to lack of equipment? Is it due to lack of human resources in our hospitals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are in the process right now of setting up - we allowed money in the Budget this year to increase the treatments, to work on weekends. They are in the process of scheduling now to stay on weekends and to work extra hours to be able to deal with the wait list for radiation treatment in our Province. So, there are steps being taken. There is money allocated in this year's Budget. It has not been there in some time, that we are going to bring people and work longer to be able to deal with waiting lists that are out there. A lot, I might add, waiting lists that are way too long, way beyond certain standards in certain instances and trying to get treatment. We are trying to reduce that. We put money in the Budget. That government was fifteen years and allowed the list to get to where it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

FPI, supposedly, a flag ship company in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have treated the people of Harbour Breton with contempt and disdain. They left the community without giving their workers a severance package or proper layoff notice.

I ask the minister, has he formally written the company to have them redress these two deplorable decisions and give the workers the financial compensation they are owed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last, I guess, six or seven months since FPI announced their intention of closing their operation in Harbour Breton, we have had a number of discussions with the company, both on Harbour Breton specifically, and on their proposed income trust transaction, generally. I can say today that we have had discussions with the company about possible financial compensation - I guess, for lack of a better word - for the people of Harbour Breton as it relates to the closure of the operation. It is also our understanding that the FFAW, the union representing the workers at Harbour Breton, have made application to the Labour Relations Agency on notice period as it relates to the closure of their operation. We await the decision of the Labour Relations Agency on that matter, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, many of the people impacted by the announcement of FPI are between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-five. They would benefit from an early retirement package.

I ask the minister: Has there been any written request to the federal government regarding a retirement package for the older workers at the Harbour Breton plant?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been any correspondence between the provincial government and the federal government on an early retirement program. As I have said in this House on many occasions before, and outside of the House, we are interested in participating in an early retirement program, but, Mr. Speaker, we want an early retirement program that results in the people who are left in the plants being better off than they were before the early retirement program is engaged in. We are interested in that concept, Mr. Speaker. We have indicated that on numerous occasions over the past couple of years, and we are still committed to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, since the announced closure of the Harbour Breton fish plant by FPI, the unanswered question for the Town of Harbour Breton has been: Will there be a quota allocated to the community?

My question to the Minister of Fisheries is: Has there been an official request made to the federal government on any quota for Harbour Breton by the provincial government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the committee from Harbour Breton and the member when we met with them earlier today, we will support quota acquisition for the people of Harbour Breton and the people of the Connaigre Peninsula. There has been a discussion between myself and the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Geoff Regan, on this matter. As we said to the people of Harbour Breton before, the exact details of the amount of quota, the type of quota, the species of fish, there is a discussion that has to take place on that matter. There is a business plan that the people of Harbour Breton, through their IAS Committee, are working on currently. Mr. Speaker, as we said before, once that process is completed we will support the people of Harbour Breton in their bid for a quota for their future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that was related to the people this morning. When that is done, you can be sure we will support the people of Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a question that was given to me by Leo Baker, one of the fish plant workers of Harbour Breton. I don't know the answer, and I am just asking it for the minister.

There has been a long history in the fishery in Harbour Breton. This is not the first time a company has pulled up stakes and left the community. Mr. Speaker, BC Packers left, Fishery Products and Fishery Products International, but their quota stayed with the community.

Now that FPI has decided to leave and take their quotas with them, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why has FPI taken their quotas out of Harbour Breton, something the other three companies were not allowed to do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Because he let them, is the answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Don't talk so foolish, Gerry.

In response, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo: They didn't take the quotas -

MR. REID: Change it. Change the legislation today. Change it right here. We will vote (inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Colleagues, I am asking for your co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune to ask the question, and I recognize the minister now to reply, and I would ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo might be interested in playing to the people in the gallery. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo might be interested in playing politics with the people of Harbour Breton, but I am not going to engage in that game.

We said from the beginning that we would do everything in our power to help the people of Harbour Breton. We have come across financially to the extent that we have been able thus far. Before this is all over, we will come through for the people of Harbour Breton. We will come through in trying to help develop the aquaculture industry down there. We will come through and help them to find quota for their community.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we are interested in finding a future for the people of Harbour Breton, not playing politics like the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that in their presentations they should not make reference to persons who are visitors in the galleries.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Yesterday, in an effort to resolve the ongoing crab dispute, the President of the FFAW, after engaging in a consultation that the government said it was going to, talking to fish harvesters, crab harvesters and processors, came up with a very comprehensive proposal that would end the dispute and get the crab fishery to commence within twenty-four to forty-eight hours, and also offered alternatives.

I want to ask the Premier: Is he looking for a solution to this situation? Will he sit down with Mr. McCurdy and the FFAW to try and find a solution to this outstanding dispute?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we did receive, yesterday - the Premier received, and I received also - a copy of a letter from Mr. McCurdy outlining some options that he thought were worth pursuing. The letter was essentially the same as the discussion that we have had with the FFAW over the past number of weeks in trying to find a resolution to this impasse.

Mr. Speaker, at this point we are in the process of drafting a response to Mr. McCurdy. I am not going to say much more on it than that right now. I will also say that I had a discussion with Dave Decker, the Secretary-Treasurer of the FFAW, earlier today.

You know, we are interested in trying to find a solution to this, so that people can get back on the water and processing plants and plant workers get back in operation. To the extent that is able to be done, we will be doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Premier. In addition to the eight propositions set forth in the letter, there is also an alternative suggested as another way to guarantee the regional balance and also protection against predatory pricing and ensure the prompt opening of the fishery.

Will the Premier acknowledge, or say here in the House today, that he is backing off from his strategy of confrontation with the FFAW and the crab fishermen, and that he is prepared to actually sit down and try to work out a compromise that can get the fishermen back on the water and get this industry going?

Will he actually work for a solution? Or, is he still going to say, well, we are writing back and forth and we are hoping something will happen. Is he committed to finding a solution that will get this industry going?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Fisheries has just basically answered that question. We received correspondence from the FFAW yesterday at, I think, around 1:00 o'clock, a very detailed letter. A reply has been in a draft form. Myself and the minister have already met on that on two occasions this morning. The minister has been in contact with officials of the FFAW.

This is not about backing down. We are in the process of trying to find a solution to the fishery problems in this Province. The solutions, as I have said before, have to be stable and sustainable, and that is what we are attempting to do.

With regard to our policy, and the policy that is put in place, we stand by that policy; but we are, in fact, preparing a detailed response to the FFAW. Hopefully, it will be this afternoon. If not, it will be first thing tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why is the Premier so worried about being seen as backing down? We are looking for a solution that is going to put thousands of fishermen back on the water, put fish plants working. It may not be exactly his plan, but if it is a plan that is going to work, why won't he accept it instead of worrying about being seen as backing down?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

We have only time for a short answer, with the time allocations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The problem with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is that he has been knocking around with the Member for Exploits too often. They seem to think alike. He is putting words in my mouth, talking about backing down. The two of them actually stood up a few minutes ago to ask a question and I thought they were going to go in tandem - one would ask the first half and one would ask the second half.

This is not about backing down. This is about the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we are doing this. We are trying to make it stable. We are trying to protect the people, as I said before, who are on the bottom of the totem pole, the people who are going to be hard done by a mismanaged fishery. This is what it is all about. We are here to try and do the right thing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not about backing down. It is about doing the right thing, and we are going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in today's edition of The Telegram the Premier is quoted as saying that he will allow his caucus members to have a free vote on our private member's motion tomorrow without repercussions. This motion, tomorrow, will remove the production quota system from the table, as proposed by the government, while the Premier's promised consultations take place.

I ask the Premier now to confirm here in the Legislature what he has said publicly in the media, that his caucus will be permitted to vote with the wishes of their constituents tomorrow without being punished like the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do now is bring politics into this whole issue again, trying to sort of cast aspersions on the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and upon our caucus and everything else, but we are just not going to play that game. That is not what this is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is a bigger, more important issue here. The issue here, of course, is the sustainability of the fishery in our Province, and issues that are important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that, the hon. member is familiar with the rules of this House. Tomorrow is Private Members' Day. Private members participate in that debate and then they vote in that debate. There can be Division and they can be asked to stand in that debate, but our caucus is solid on this. We stand by the principle of raw material sharing. We stand behind the Minister of Fisheries. We stand behind the decision of Cabinet and the decision of government, and we will follow that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: To try and make petty, political points at the expense of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, even that is below you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the personal attacks from the Premier. It means I am getting to him, as usual.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again, for greater clarity - this is not about politics; it is very serious - he has said that the issue of income trust for FPI is so important that he put it to a free vote. I suggest the crab impasse is so important, let's put it to a free vote instead of standing up now and telling your members how they have to speak and vote tomorrow. I ask, for greater clarity, Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier allow the Members for Trinity-Bay de Verde, Trinity North, Bonavista South, Bonavista North, Windsor-Springdale, Burin-Placentia West, and Terra Nova, to speak up for their constituents and vote with their constituents in that vote tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You left out Twillingate & Fogo in that list. It will be interesting to see what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo intends to do. The co-op is not too pleased with his actions and his non-appearance, and the fact that he is not around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. The Premier is in the process of replying.

I recognize the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I know there are going to be a lot of interesting questions asked tomorrow. It will be interesting to hear how your own members react. With regard to our position here, none of my members have been told how to vote. They will appear tomorrow -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No. Their position is very clearly on the record. They support the position of government. They have stated it time and time again, and presumably they will state it tomorrow. If they change their minds overnight, well, so be it, but they are prepared to do what they have to do. They will certainly be allowed to do it because it certainly will not be my position, that I am going to go in and tell them what to do. Is that the answer you want?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: What a change. What a change since the old silver bullet drove up and flew up from Houston.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask again about a real free vote, because the Premier has said he believes in free votes and he will allow a free vote on an income trust for FPI, another fisheries issue. Will the Premier allow a genuine, real free vote tomorrow so that Cabinet ministers - like the Member for Bay Verte, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Ferryland - can stand up and speak out on behalf of the people who elected them to come to this Legislature and vote as their constituents want them to vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a good point on the income trust, as the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune was in a meeting this morning when we met with the people from Harbour Breton. We had a very good meeting with the people from Harbour Breton. It lasted over an hour. There were three ministers present, myself and staff. We heard their concerns, which were very eloquently pleaded by the people who represented them. We heard them loud and clear. We are prepared to work - as the Minister of Fisheries said - toward solutions.

With regard to presenting a business case. We are prepared to make representation on quotas. I personally phoned the Member of Parliament, Mr. Bill Matthews, as soon as I got our of that meeting. We made a commitment to the member that we would also contact the federal Minister of Fisheries with regard to quotas. We are doing everything we can.

With regard to an income trust, we indicated this morning that will come before the House of Assembly, if it is appropriate. There will be a free vote and because we are concerned about the complexities of it, we will make sure that we are looking out for the interests of Harbour Breton, Fortune -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one brief supplementary and one brief reply.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the FFAW proposal from yesterday, in writing, which all of us have seen, it guarantees competition while ensuring regional quotas. It is only a one-year pilot project that will last for just a few short months and it does have the support of both fish harvesters and fish processors.

So, I ask the Premier, in the meetings that you and the minister have had this morning: Why is it that you do not just now agree to let the fish processors, fish harvesters get together like they obviously have, start the crab season so half-a-billion dollars worth of economic activity can start happening right here in Newfoundland and Labrador like they want it to happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we have indicated before, we are in the process of preparing a response to a very detailed letter, a three-page letter, which I have read through very thoroughly myself time and time again. We have had consultations on it. We are preparing a response and as soon as we have a response, we will certainly send you a copy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 31)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 37, I give notice that a following substantive motion - and I understand this will actually be debated on our Private Members' Day, Opposition Private Members' Day two weeks hence:

WHEREAS the Speaker of the House of Assembly has not applied the rules of the House equally to all members; and

WHEREAS the Speaker of the House of Assembly has extended the power of his position without the authority of the House; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on the Speaker to operate within the confines of Standing Order 1(1) and Standing Order 1(2) and convene the Standing Orders Committee when otherwise necessary.

That is seconded by the Member for Exploits.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 29)

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 19)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under our rules, normally, if a person is going to raise a point of privilege, it should be done at the earliest opportunity. I just give notice at this time - I have not yet - I do intend to make a point of privilege, but I am in the process of compiling the necessary research in order to do it properly. I just give notice at this time that I would certainly like to make that point. I do not want someone suggesting later that I did not do it at the earliest opportunity, but it is not possible to do it right now because I do not have all of the necessary information in order to make that point of privilege properly.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 25)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities. (Bill 23)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: 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 Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 27)

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 26)

Thank you.

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

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

On behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that I had called petitions, but I saw, after I mentioned Orders of the Day, several members rising. I recognize two members who were standing.

The Chair will go to the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on a petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in The Straits & White Bay North. Mr. Speaker, this petition is with regard to health care in that particular area, and the amount of debt that has been accumulated by the new Grenfell-Labrador Health Authority.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this region have not taken a great deal of comfort in recommendations that have been outlined in the HayGroup report; recommendations, Mr. Speaker, which would see the total demise of the health care system in that region as they presently know it.

Mr. Speaker, the HayGroup itself recommended that obstetric services, gynecology, psychiatry, radiology and pediatrics be removed from this particular facility, be removed from that health care region, thus jeopardizing the health care as we know it in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, the HayGroup also made recommendations with regard to obstetric services, gynecology services and day surgery services in Stephenville and Port aux Basques as well. We witness in this House of Assembly, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East stand in her place and say that government would not accept the recommendations in the HayGroup as they related to obstetric services in Stephenville because she was protecting the interest of women's health. Well, Mr. Speaker, the women in the Northern Peninsula, the women in Southern Labrador, feel that their health issues are every bit as important as those of the women in the member's own district, Mr. Speaker. They feel that government should act now, should remove those recommendations from the table immediately, so that they will not have to fear losing these services in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I think their fears are founded because they are right now under a health authority that has a $14 million deficit; a deficit that government is asking them to pay down from existing revenues; a deficit that they are forcing the boards to get under control with no new money forecast, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the only way that they can balance the books is to be able to cut services.

The people in this area want a commitment. They want a commitment from the government that says that the integrity and the services of their health care system in the St. Anthony region, the Northern Peninsula, the Southern Labrador area, are going to be protected and they are going to be looked after, just like the commitments they made in the Stephenville area in one of their own member's districts, Mr. Speaker.

I feel that the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East acted purely in the interest of her own district and in the interest of herself, and not in the interest of women in this Province, because she failed to protect the services, or even speak to protect the services, for women in the Northern Peninsula. To me, Mr. Speaker, that shows that she was looking after her own self in her own district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some of the members of the Trinity-Bay de Verde District, and the petition reads as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has announced a program of raw material sharing in the crab fishery; and

WHEREAS this plan will stifle competition, increase the power of crab processors, and reduce the value of fishing enterprises; and

WHEREAS the Dunne Commission confirmed that most fish harvesters and crab plant workers strongly oppose this type of regime; and

WHEREAS the program was announced without addressing the substantive and reasonable objections from plant workers and harvesters as promised by the minister on February 4, 2004, and without providing full debate by all interested parties as promised in writing by the minister.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to reverse the decision of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador implementing raw material sharing in the crab fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I want to present that on behalf of the constituents who passed that petition on to me in a meeting we held on Friday, just so I could fill my obligations here as a member in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise to present a petition on behalf of some 1,100 petitioners from the District of Bonavista North. These were collected over just the last few days, and again call upon the government to postpone and delay the implementation of a production quota system until the promised consultation - promised in writing, by the way, never to be forgotten - promised in writing by this government, that we would never, ever, introduce this new system unless we came and spoke to all of the people who are involved, all the stakeholders, first and foremost, and then only to have the minister admit here in questioning last week that he only wrote the letter last year this time because he wanted to get last year's fishery started so he promised them consultation before this year, and he had no intention - none whatsoever, obviously - of having that particular consultation.

These 1,100 petitioners, Mr. Speaker, go a bit further and they actually petition as well that they call upon - and here are their words: We do hereby petition our Member for Bonavista North to speak on behalf of his constituents and call for an immediate end to his government's plan to implement crab production quotas for the crab industry.

Eleven hundred names collected in just the last two days. I know the constituents were here this morning wanting to meet with the member. I don't know if they arranged a meeting or not. That is what they drove in from Bonavista North this morning to do. Eleven hundred collected in the last few days only from a handful of communities in the district, not even the full district.

Again, tomorrow, in the free vote, we are asking for an opportunity for them to stand up and speak for their constituents. I think, Mr. Speaker, these constituents in Bonavista North, through this petition, are speaking loud and clear, that if their member is bringing any message to a caucus on their behalf it is: Please live up to your promise. Please cancel this program until we have the consultation. We will find out tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I guess, whether he will say anything or whether he will try to duck like the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde just did and say: Well, I am going to present the petition because that is my obligation to do so. Tomorrow there is an opportunity to speak up for the constituents, speak on their behalf, because they elected each and every one of us to be here, and then vote without any recrimination by the caucus or the Premier. He stated it here again today: Every member can speak and vote as they wish. We will see whether or not any of them speak and vote as their constituents wish, as the 1,100 constituents from Bonavista North right here, asking their member specifically to stand up, speak on their behalf, and do one very simple thing; just ask the government to keep its promise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I , too, have a petition. This petition is from residents of a number of communities in the Province, La Scie, Snooks Arm, Harbour Round, all of whom call upon the House to urge government to only impose production quotas if it is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors as recommended in the Dunne report.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that is being presented, and a number of members have done so. All of these people, who are concerned about what is happening in the crab fishery, are, in fact, looking for a solution that meets the conditions of the Dunne report and meets the democratic conditions of having a proper consultation with people before imposing a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether to be encouraged by what I heard today from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Premier or to be discouraged. They say they have a letter and they are going to answer it. I heard Mr. McCurdy on the radio today say that these are our proposals, we do not have to accept all of them. These are our basis for discussions. Let's sit down and try and work it out. In fact, in the letter itself he has an alternative, saying: Look, if you do not like number one, we have an alternative here to meet the goal of regional sharing.

What I heard was that we are going to prepare a detailed answer to the letter. What do we have, some kind of an exchange of letters going on? These are participants in the democratic process. These are unions, Mr. Speaker, who have represented workers. Mr. McCurdy has been in as a union leader for the past twenty-five years, just about. They have their negotiating committee. They have people who are knowledgeable of this industry and how it works. The crab processors, they have been involved in these discussions. They not only have the agreement of 40 per cent of the buyers, or buyers of 40 per cent of the crab, they also have contacted individual members of the associated fish producers who say that they find it acceptable, although they are officially supporting the ASP organization.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that there is something on the go here that the processors and the fish harvesters can live with. There are references throughout this proposal to the objectives set down by the Minister of Fisheries in terms of regional sharing, in terms of some control over how much fish might be available for various plants. It seems to be heading in the direction that the government wants, Mr. Speaker. Instead of saying: Well, yes, we are going to sit down and talk to them. We think this is the basis for a good, solid discussion and we will try and find a solution. What we hear is, we are going to write them a letter. The Premier takes pains to insist we are not backing down. So, I do not know, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: But I do hope I am wrong, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it is the basis for discussion. It is being put forth as a reasonable compromise. It is being put forth as the basis for discussion, and I hope the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier will actually sit down and try and hammer out the differences to see if they can come up with a solution instead of writing letters back and forth, which does not seem to be necessarily aimed at finding a solution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition again today on behalf of the residents of Harbour Breton:

Whereupon the community is asking that FPI's fish quota, that has been traditionally processed in Harbour Breton, stay there.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I learned this morning in a meeting that we had with the people from Harbour Breton and the Premier and the committee, talking about how FPI, as a company, treat people differently. In Nova Scotia, when they laid people off in one of the businesses recently, they gave every person who left the company a severance of $10,000. One of the people who got that severance was a former resident of Harbour Breton who worked in Nova Scotia. Here you have a company - the Newfoundland people here, the people of Harbour Breton, who have given their lives to this particular company, they leave the community. They leave without giving the people a severance. They leave without giving the people a proper notice. They should have given them twelve weeks of notice and paid them thereunto. The reason why they say they did not have to do that is because the plant is dilapidated. Occupational Health and Safety will not allow them to go into the building, therefore they are off the hook. Now, can you imagine, a flagship company in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, one of the companies that is supposed to have shown leadership in the Province, to do that to people who have worked for them for ten, twenty, thirty-plus years. Mr. Speaker, it is really galling to realize that is the type of thing to happen.

The other thing that I did not find out until today, Leo Baker - and the final question that I asked to the minister earlier. I did not know that when British Columbia Packers or BC Packers left Harbour Breton when they were producing herring and other groundfish, when they left their quota stayed. Fishery Products, the old Fishery Products company that was Newfoundland owned, when they left their quota stayed in Harbour Breton. The old FPI company, when they left, like many of the other communities, they left their quota there. Now, FPI, the flagship of the groundfish industry in Newfoundland, a company that people in Newfoundland looked up to in a sense as being, as I said, a flagship, a company that you had respect for, that you had admiration for, just left and they are taking their quota with them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the thing about it is, I do not know, at the end of the day, whether FPI will ever leave a portion of their quota for Harbour Breton but I am saying this, there should not be any company the size of FPI, the stature of FPI, a company like that leave Harbour Breton and leave the people penniless. There should be some shekels shaken out of their pockets so that the ordinary people, the ordinary workers in the community of Harbour Breton should, at least, have some redress at the end of the day. That is what you see the people who came in, in busloads, from Harbour Breton today to come here to put - as Mr. George said when we met earlier this morning - a human face on it. The community is going through a crises situation. There is devastation here and the company, FPI, cannot be off the hook. They have to be responsible for some protection (inaudible) in this community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the fish harvesters, I would say, in the entire Province, but this one that I have today is, in fact, on behalf of fish harvesters in Bonavista South, in particular from Open Hall and Bonavista.

I shared this petition with the Member for Bonavista South, but he did not feel comfortable in presenting it because it came from me and not directly from them.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker, that she did send the petition over to me and asked me to present it. I say to people in this House, and to you, Mr Speaker, that this member will present any petition that comes to him from his constituents, but he will not stand and present petitions that are presented from the opposite side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: That was exactly what I said, Mr. Speaker. I said, I understood that he did not feel comfortable presenting it because it came from me, but that I would present it on their behalf. That is exactly what I am doing today. He just confirmed what I said.

This petition is on behalf of fish harvesters in Open Hall and Bonavista, and other fish harvesters in the Province, people who are finding themselves in a difficult situation because of the stubbornness of this government and their failure to acknowledge that they have not listened to people who are being impacted in such a negative way by the policy that this government is putting forward, as if they are the only ones with the answer when it comes to fish harvesting in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

What we are facing here today are not just fish harvesters, but their families. We are talking about small businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and my colleague from Fortune Bay just talked about the impact what is happening in Harbour Breton is having on that rural community. That is an example of what is going to happen in all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador if, in fact, the government does not back down, or - not back down, but understand and appreciate what the fish harvesters are saying about the impact that their failure to listen to the fish harvesters will have on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are talking half a billion dollar industry here, and obviously you know that it is not just the half a billion dollars that will be realized as a result of the fish that is being caught, but when you look at small businesses that benefit from fish harvesters, and the supplies that they purchase, when you look at the boats that are involved, when you look at all of the people who need to buy groceries in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, what we are hearing today is that people are going out and shopping, not having the money to buy what they normally would buy, so clearly the impact is far-reaching.

Again, we are asking the government, and the fish harvesters are asking the government, to listen to what the FFAW is saying in particular. They have put forward a proposal that they feel will solve this issue, where they will be able to get back out on the water and will know that the fishing industry will be able to go forward knowing full well that it will be in the best interests of everyone involved, including the entire Province. We are not just talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day, I assume.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act. (Bill 13)

Motion 6, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. ( Bill 18)

Motion 7, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. ( Bill 20).

Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Respecting the Imposition of Taxes on Tobacco. ( Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: For clarification, the Chair will do the first readings on Motion 4, Motion 5 -

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Motion 5, Motion 6 and Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, Motion 6 and Motion 7.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act. ( Bill 13)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act," carried. (Bill 13)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act. ( Bill 13).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. ( Bill 18)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act," carried. ( Bill 18)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. ( Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace." (Bill 20)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace" carried. (Bill 20)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace." (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I was moving with too much speed, I say, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for that.

Before I move motion 2, I do want to move to motion 10, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and motion 11, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move motion 2, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Respecting the Imposition of Taxes on Tobacco, known as Bill 5.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11 the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 10.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

It is further moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 10.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn to consider certain resolutions pursuant to motion 2.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CHAIR : Order, please!

The resolution and Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill proposes to amend subsection 9.(1) of the Tobacco Tax Act and to put into effect certain increases in the tobacco tax rate that was announced in the Budget on March 21 to come into effect actually at 12:01 a.m. on March 22. It is traditional on Budget that these come into effect immediately after midnight the day that they are in the Budget. What it does, it increases the tax on a cigarette by one cent, from sixteen cents to seventeen cents. It increases on fine cut tobacco per gram, increases it from twenty cents to twenty-five cents.

One of the purposes of doing this is not based on revenue. It is a part of our strategy on smoking cessation. It is in keeping with our tobacco reduction strategy that is being promoted through the Department of Health; initiatives that we are moving forward on. It is very much so - with reference to legislation even being introduced here in this House, too - on extending the smoking ban in public places to include bars and bingo halls. It is also, hopefully, a deterrent, the higher price, especially with youth who are price sensitive to items and to cigarette smoking, that it may allow them the opportunity never to have to take up smoking. Once somebody gets addicted to smoking, it is very, very difficult to be able to kick the habit. Tremendous amounts of work have been done in trying to get people to break the habit. It is much easier if they did not pick up the habit in the first place. While taxation is not the only method to do it, we will have an opportunity in another bill to be able to discuss the strategies that are in place this year. Particularly with public health, the largest investment in public health in our history, $2.4 million; wellness strategy, dealing with smoking and numerous other aspects beyond.

This bill is very straightforward, very direct in its application. There are three parts: 9.(1) is (a), (b) and (c). (C) has not changed from the previous part. It is still on cigars. It has not changed the percentage of tax there. The only change is to increase it from twenty to twenty-five cents a gram on fine cut. Last year, if you remember in the Budget, we increased it from fifteen to twenty and now twenty to twenty-five cents. That is a significant increase. A sixty-six-and-two-thirds percent increase in fine cut tobacco in the last two years because there is still a fair discrepancy between the amount on each particular one on fine cut, in a roll-your-own cigarette and on the ones that are purchased and done at a factory on a commercial basis.

Actually, what it amounts to is about two-and-a-half cents on roll-your-own because, I guess, with new technology, with rolling your own now they can put up to twice - you can get two, basically, out of a gram as opposed to one before. Now, you are finding there is a significant amount. You get twice as much. What would go into one cigarette now can be put into two. In other words, that really equates to about two-and-a-half cent a cigarette if you look at it, basically, on fine cut. There is still a fair gap there. We figure it is important to move up this proportionately to bridge that gap there as a deterrent for people who are smoking.

It is fairly straightforward. I will say it is going to result in revenue. While there is a reduction in smoking, we anticipate there is an increase in revenue there; it will accompany it despite that. The amount of revenue will be around $9.6 million. Roughly, $6.4 million should come from one cent on the regular cigarettes that are, we will say, commercially produced, and around $3.2 million should come on the fine cut. That will be about $9.6 million in revenue on that item, even though there is a reduction in consumption. Last year when we raised it, the same amount, there was five cents on fine cut and one cent, there was an increase in revenue but a reduction in consumption.

Of course, in keeping with areas that are border areas, like, for instance, Labrador West - one of the complaints they had in Labrador West - in fact, when I was in Opposition I spoke in Labrador West to a Chamber, and one of the concerns was people were going over to Vermont. They were buying, not only cigarettes, but they were buying their groceries and everything else and business had a negative effect. I promoted that at the time, pushed it, and the government of the day did, I must say, kept their rate on a par with Quebec. If Quebec has an increase, we will move it up in the border communities in Southern Labrador and in Labrador West to reflect, basically, what it is. We do not want to lose other business and so on because of this single particular item there across the border. So, it is sensitive to concerns in the regions that were brought up. In fact, I made a significant issue of this back, I think it was 1997, when it got raised and the government of the day did respond and brought that in. We have also considered those sensitivities and it will not change there unless the Quebec rate changes and then they will move in line with the Quebec rate. That will be the intention.

So, I think it is very direct, very straightforward. There is not much else I really can say on this. I do not intend to go into, at this particular bill, discussing the program or smoking because I think that is more appropriately addressed in the banning of smoking in public places, in our wellness strategy through health and numerous other initiatives in that area. This is a way to increase it because we feel that tobacco has a very negative impact on the health of people. Environmental tobacco smoke is dangerous. If we can reduce consumption of that, I think it benefits everybody in our society. It is very important that we take the initiative. We did increase taxes. Some might say: Well, why don't you ban it? Well, it is technically not an illegal substance. You can utilize it. There are a lot of other ills in society that are not healthful to individuals. They do not promote good health but, you know, they are not a substance that is on a ban substance.

Price of that in the market, maybe that is another issue. There are people certainly struggling with it, trying to reduce their consumption on it and deal with those areas. We felt that we did need to move in that direction. We did it last year. We did it this year. While it does, indeed, get more revenue, we have been fortunate because we have been able to put more revenue into health care this year. We have been able to put $113 million more into health care. Fifty-nine-and-a-half million of that will flow through from federal money. Basically, that was in the First Ministers' Meeting but there is a significant investment beyond that. Another forty-three million roughly, forty-three-and-a-half million beyond that we have also invested on top of that.

So, that allows us to get extra revenues to allow flexibility to put into programs, like in public health; in the promotion to prevention and educating people; to put money into a school program this year; right and proper eating down in schools; what food should be in schools. That is all part of our strategy in health we are developing this year; and physical education in schools. There are numerous areas for better health, better activity that is channeled - there are initiatives in this year's Budget to deal with a lot of those things, I guess, that are probably more appropriate to talk about under some other piece of legislation. But, generally, it is a part of a money bill. It has been the basis of a finance bill. There is revenue associated with it but there is also, I think, positive effects on people's health as it starts to increase because it does promote reduction in consumption. I think that is important.

With that, Mr. Chair, I think I have covered the points that are in this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased today to stand and respond to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board on Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

As the minister has stated, he claims the only tax in this Budget this year is the increase in tobacco tax, but I think he is leaving out the fact that there is another increase, and the other increase is the cost of registering a property, a mortgage, from $25 to $100 as a minimum fee. He has not stated that one.

Governments in the past, and I am sure this government, will agree that the two most likely areas to collect taxes in any particular budget is the increase of alcohol or cigarettes. It has been in our society forever, that people will not object to those increases because only the people who wish to smoke or wish to drink will actually be affected by this, so the societies in great numbers will not be affected.

What I would say to the minister, he is saying that the tax imposed will be, like in the case of cigarettes, point seventeen cents on every cigarette. That is the increase, and he said himself it would be a cent, basically, per cigarette, and two-and-a-half cents on roll-your-own. In the case of cigars, a tax of 125 per cent of the manufacturer's suggested retail price on a cigar, and the tax shall be rounded to the nearest one one-hundredth of a cent.

These prices are already in effect, so today it is after the fact that we are talking about this piece of legislation. It already went into effect on March 22, the day after the Budget. The Budget was passed last night.

The minister said there will be approximately $9.6 million derived from the increase of tobacco prices in this Province. That is a fair chunk of money, $10 million in new revenues coming from this area. We all know, it is a well-known fact, that there has been a great increase in young smokers in our Province. Anyone only has to look at the recent stats that came out from the Canadian Cancer Society. Smoking, lung disease and heart disease are in the top three of deadly diseases in our Province, and indeed all over the world, so, when you look at the effects of what tobacco smoking does to our people, you can hardly object today to tobacco prices being increased.

It was interesting as well that the minister said he is also - or the Minister of Health and Community Services is also - bringing to this House, in unison with this particular piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will ban smoking in bars and bingo halls. Of course, there is quite a delegation that has come to government over the past six months that have their own businesses, particularly those in bars and clubs and bingo halls and so on, that have been working, I guess, with government to either stall or slow down this legislation, but it appears today that this legislation will be passed before this House closes for the spring.

The minister has already said, too, that in the bill that is going to come before us from Health and Community Services - I think it is Bill 18, I am not quite sure - that a lot of the measures in that particular bill will be prevention.

I would be curious to see what the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has decided to do with that extra $10 million that is going to be derived from this particular revenue generator. He mentioned that there is going to be a push to make sure that children in the schools have a better eating program, and it was only in this particular last Budget, March 21, that the provincial government decided to cut the annual donation to Kids Eat Smart. That is a program for young people in schools all around the Northeast Avalon. It was always funded to the tune of $500,000 per year, but this year government has seen, in their wisdom, to cut that program to $250,000. These are the kinds of questions I would like to ask the minister, why government decided to reduce that Kids Eat Smart program, to cut it in half.

He also mentioned that there was extra money put in the health care budget this year. We know that the extra money that came to Health and Community Services this year were basically federal dollars. There was a health care agreement that was signed in early fall by Premiers right across Canada, and that resulted in roughly $36 million for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to use towards its health care budget. There was another agreement signed that would guarantee this government, over the next eight years, a minimum of $70 million for new equipment, and the reason for this commitment from the federal government to provincial governments across Canada was that all governments made health care their number one priority.

There was a move afoot by the federal government to respond to the Romanow Commission that took place all over this country about two years ago. One of the recommendations that came out of that Commission was that we ought to do something about waits for surgery, waits for treatment, and waits for diagnostic imaging. All of these were important factors for people right across the country. For that reason we can expect, as a provincial government right here in this Province, that over the next eight years we can make up our budget every year knowing that we will have at least an extra $70 million to put in our health care budget designed for improvements, upkeep, and replacement of equipment that is here in our health care facilities all over our Province. That is a good move. I am sure it will put a lot of people at ease all over the Province, knowing that our equipment is going to be up to standard. Although, in recent days there have been questions raised about our mammography equipment in various centres throughout the Province. There has been a bit of confusion as to who is right and who is wrong with certifying and accrediting that equipment.

I think it is incumbent upon our Minister of Health and Community Services to provide a list to women in this Province so that anyone going for mammography screening will have a clear indication of which equipment is safe to use. We all know women who have mammography screening can be involved in a high dose of radiation, which is not good for anyone, particularly for those that are in their reproductive stages. I know that women all over this Province want to know how safe our equipment is. I believe that the Minister of Health and Community Services, the acting minister, should seek to get that information out to the general public as soon as possible because there are all kinds of people waiting for tests. Most women, when they decide to have breast screening done, have to wait probably anywhere from two months to six months. For those wanting to make those decisions today, I think it is important for this government to make sure that becomes a priority, and put at ease the concerns of women across our Province.

It is interesting that, when you look in our Budget for this year, the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board has ready lowballed most of the revenue that we are going to be getting from unsourced funds. When you look at, for instance, the tobacco tax, last year there was $102 million in revenue from tobacco tax, this year it is going to be $112 million. He is basing it on the premise, I guess, that people are going to decrease their smoking habits.

There is another one that is alarming that I would like to ask the minister about when he come back into the House. Last year there were revenues of $105 million on sales of liquor and this year the minister is predicting that there will be $99 million in revenues from the sale of liquor. Some of these are lowballed when we know, in fact, that based on the increase alone, we can expect more revenue to be generated from the sale of alcohol and tobacco in our Province.

What I would say about this legislation is, it is straightforward. There is nothing complicated or untoward with it. The minister has stated openly that he is increased cigarettes one cent and two and a half cents on roll your own tobacco. It is a measure, although he might say, to prevent smoking, it is also a measure to generate new income for this Province.

What I would like the minister to tell this House and to tell me is what he intends to do with this $10 million. There are all kinds of urgent priorities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that need this $10 million. I think of the decrease in our teachers for this year coming up and the fact that a lot of schools in rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be subjected to looking into a computer monitor to get their social studies course, the core curriculum for Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. It would be important if the minister would take that $10 million and put it back into education, so our children in rural Newfoundland and Labrador would have a fighting chance to compete with children all over Newfoundland and Labrador when they go on to post-secondary colleges and universities. That is one suggestion for the minister.

I would like for the minister to consider taking that $10 million and putting it into our roads in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. People are almost to the point now where they are paying an enormous amount of money just for car repair, just to get to and from larger centres for the basic services. These are just two ideas, and there are all kinds of ideas to spend this extra $10 million.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem with this particular piece of legislation. In saying that, there were only a couple of questions that I would like for the minister to ask. With that said, I will now take my seat.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 8, particularly as it relates to other areas of issues within the Province as well. I want to say to the minister, I acknowledge his comments on the increase in tobacco tax as one that, hopefully, will discourage smoking and certainly cause people to have a second look because of the cost of tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, the minister also made another important comment, that this was a good, public health policy measure. I want to say to the minister, there are other things in this Province that require good, public health policy matters as well. When we talk about raising money, Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about the money that would be raised from this. I also want to relate that to another, what I would call, health issue in the Province, and that is the gambling monies that come into this Province from the VLT machines throughout the Province.

I want to say to the minister, that his government, during the recent Budget, talked about putting a freeze on the number of VLTs in the Province with a view to reduce them by 15 per cent over the next five years. Mr. Chairman, that has been circumvented by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation because what they have done in recent weeks in this Province, is looked at the number of current VLTs that probably contain a game called Keno. I would suspect that the VLTs which contain that game will be part of the 15 per cent that will be removed.

Since then, Mr. Chairman, they found a way around this because, as we speak, they are installing televisions free of charge to clubs in this Province and they will be introducing a new gambling game called Electronic Keno in this Province. I say to the minister, that is shameful! To say in the Budget that you are concerned about gambling, that you are going to do something to address the problem, and allow now a new form of gambling to come into this Province so that not just one person will be able to play the game, but everybody in the club will be able to play at the same time because there will be a draw continuously every five minutes of the day and night. The minister should stand in his place and condemn that action, and this Province should not take part in that program.

Mr. Chairman, the Province of New Brunswick and the Province of Nova Scotia have refused to allow Electronic Keno into their provinces. They have done that for good reason, Mr. Chairman, because according to the experts that they took advice from - and I doubt very much if our Province even consulted people in the addiction field to find out and ask them their opinion on what that would do to gambling and people with gambling addictions in this Province. Mr. Chairman, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia said no to Electronic Keno in their provinces. One of the experts in Nova Scotia made a submission to the provincial government and stated that Electronic Keno is expected to increase the number of suicides by problem gamblers in their province, by six or seven a year. That is a high price to pay, I say to the minister, for a tax grab or money grab from Atlantic Lotto.

The other interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the representatives for our government, for our Province on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is the Deputy Minister of Tourism and the Deputy Minister of Finance. Now, I do not know what the relationship is there, Mr. Chairman. By having the Deputy Minister of Tourism, you would honestly think that this is a fun thing, something that people would come into the Province and play as a sort of form of recreation. Well, it is far from that, Mr. Chairman, it is far from that. I would suggest to government that maybe they should have the Deputy Minister of Health on that committee. Someone who can look at new things that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation want to bring in and someone who has a feel for what that will do to the health of people in our Province. Mr. Chairman, this is a prey upon the vulnerable in our society. We are all predisposed to some degree or another on having addictions and the people who are predisposed to having gambling addictions are the ones that governments prey upon to get as much money as they can from them once they become addicted.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister needs to address this because it is a bit hypocritical, I would say, to stand on Budget Day and say: We recognize and we are concerned in this Province about problem gambling, and we are going to do something about it. We are going to put in $750,000 of new money to educate people on the problems of gambling and we are going to use some of that money to treat people who are addicted to VLTs; at the same time, when they say they are going to roll back the number by 15 per cent.

As I said earlier, it is very hypocritical. I want an answer from the minister as to why, on one hand, he can say he is concerned, he can say that they are going to freeze the number of VLTs, he can say that they are going to roll back the number that presently exist, and on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, they can allow a new form, just as addictive, according to experts in the field, a new form of gambling to come into the Province, use it as a cash-grab on the backs of the people who have problems and still feel comfortable about that. There is something wrong with that, Mr. Chairman, something drastically wrong and it should not be allowed to happen. The Province of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did the right thing. They said: No, this is not something that we want in our province that will make life harder for people who live here and have gambling addictions, who probably do not even know now that they have gambling addictions.

The other thing the minister should be aware of and should be concerned about as well is the effect that this will have on social organizations in our Province, like Lions Clubs, Kinsmen Clubs, church groups and other groups that run regular bingos, because I believe this will have a negative impact upon them and their ability, through charities and fund-raising at a weekly bingo game, that this will directly impact upon their ability to continue as they have in the past. I think this will have a negative effect upon them and the minister should be instructing our representatives on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to say no to this. If you notice, there was no fanfare about this. This was done under the cover of darkness. It was done without any PR whatsoever. Now, downtown St. John's - I am not sure about others areas of the Province but I know downtown St. John's, I have been told that these Keno machines are already in operation and they are in operation in other parts of the city here as well. There is no doubt, that will spread through the Province.

I think it shameful, after all of the facts, all of the evidence that we have in this Province where people have lost their life savings, have lost their families, have lost everything that they worked for, and sometimes, Mr. Chairman, even their lives. For us to capitalize on the agony and anguish that has been caused to families in this Province, and expand what is already a serious problem is certainly something that this government should be ashamed of, and they should instruct Atlantic Lotto to remove that game from this Province because, in fact, we are trying - what the government should be saying is that we are trying to curb the number of people who are addicted to gambling in this Province and we certainly do not need games that can reach this number of people at one time, to have that kind of misery inflicted, in addition to the VLTs, to people who are suffering from addictions. All of the experts in the field agree. They agree that these machines are equally as addictive as the VLTs.

Mr. Chairman, the Public Accounts Committee, which I have a copy of here from the Government of Nova Scotia, the Public Accounts Committee that is made up of all parties in the Legislature in Nova Scotia, had experts come in to talk with them about the effects that this may very well have.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the concerns that were raised by the experts are very, very alarming, and I think that this minister should instruct the Atlantic Lottery Corporation that this is not something we need in this Province. We survived quite well without relying and being addicted to gambling revenues for many, many years. We have new money coming into the Province today and it is not good enough, I say to the minister, that monies should be raised through this method. Not only are we raising money but we are indeed trying to further the gambling industry so that the Province can rake in more money than they are already collecting from people, because the most money that is collected from gambling revenues are collected from problem gamblers. It is not people going out for a night and putting some money in a machine, and doing that once or twice a week. That is not where most of the profits come from. It comes from people who have problems, who are destroying themselves and their families.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I think that is totally shameful and I think the minister has to be answerable for that because - I am not sure if he presently is, but I do know, from looking at the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation - the Deputy Minister of Finance is indeed a person who sits on that committee, along with the Deputy Minister of Tourism. Again, Mr. Chairman, I say that maybe the Deputy Minister of Health should be a member of that committee so that he can relate to the problems that are being caused.

I say again, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to look at new directions for public health policies in this Province, gambling is certainly one of the things that needs to be looked at and needs to be curbed, not expanded as the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is doing at the present time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Labrador West that his speaking time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did have a few other things to say, but I will certainly have an opportunity to do that later.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on this legislation, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, by increasing tax on tobacco to raise an additional $9.6 million. In doing so, I want to thank and congratulate the Member for Labrador West in raising, again today, as he has done in the past, the issue of the problems with the gambling industry that this government and the previous government have been participating in, in a very large way, proposing to raise, for example, this year $114.5 million.

I want to tie the two together because I think they are related here. We have the Minister of Health, who also happens to be the Minister of Finance - he is the Acting Minister of Health - talking about this not as a revenue measure, although he says it is going to be $9.6 million, but he is saying the real purpose behind this is to increase the deterrence for smokers and to decrease consumption. These are commendable objectives, and those objectives I support wholeheartedly, but I want to ask him whether or not the $9.6 million is going to be added to the campaign against smoking, is going to be used to convince young people not to start, is going to be part of a don't start smoking campaign in our high schools and our elementary schools, is going to be used to assist people who are smoking to be able to get access to the patch.

Mr. Chairman, I hear stories of people who want to get medications to stop smoking, and are on social assistance and cannot get access to the patch because the department of social services says: Go buy it out of your allowance. They will not give them additional monies to pay for anti-smoking measures.

Why doesn't the Minister of Health, who happens to be the Minister of Finance, say that should be available to anybody in the Province who cannot afford that treatment? Because it does cost money, Mr. Chairman, whether it is the patch, Nicorette, or whatever other anti-smoking campaign or programs are available. They should be available through a government program and some of that, or all of that, $9.6 million - if he is not interested in the revenue, Mr. Chairman, he should be turning around and using that extra $9.6 million to, in fact, further decrease the consumption of tobacco by assisting people to quit, by having an effective anti-smoking campaign in the schools, and by continuing to support, and increase the support, for such groups as the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, I know there are other measures that this government is going to undertake this year that are going to assist in decreasing the consequences of second-hand smoke, and I look forward to debating those in this House, but we do have an extra $9.6 million as a result of this measure that could be used to act as a deterrent in this regard.

While we are at it, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is concerned about decreasing the amount of tobacco being consumed in the Province because of its addictive nature, because of its health consequences, then surely we should also see some equally strong measures to deter and to help those who are addicted to gambling. This is where my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, is coming from when he says that this government, instead of doing that, in fact, is allowing one of its Crown corporations, or partly a Crown corporation - we own a part of it; we own a quarter of it, or whatever share of it we own - the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is actively pursuing and exploiting problem gamblers in Newfoundland and Labrador. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because I understand the studies that have been done show that almost 40 per cent of the revenue - these are studies done in Alberta, in Ontario and in Nova Scotia - of the gambling corporations actually come from between 6 per cent and 7 per cent of the gamblers, the gambling population, and this is the same percentage, Mr. Chairman, that are categorized as problem gamblers, those who have an addiction. These people spend between $7,000 and $10,000 per year on gambling, Mr. Chairman, at great cost to their bank accounts and to their families. That is only an average, so obviously some people are doing even more.

Other statistics, Mr. Chairman, which show how bad this problem is, indicate that, in fact, gambling among both higher income and lower income households is on the rise. It is increasing, Mr. Chairman, and the security of families is at risk as a result of it. The real victims, according to a study - and this is a study done by a professor at Saint Mary's University in Nova Scotia, Dr. John MacMullen - the real victims, according to this study, are those from lower income earner categories, less educated, and elderly citizens.

Now we have the victims of this gambling addiction that the individuals have and the governments have, are in fact people who are less educated, people who are elderly, people who are lower income residents of these provinces. So, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance wants to identify a social problem that needs to be fixed, then problem gamblers is where he should be placing some of his effort, and if he is collecting additional revenue here maybe he should be finding ways of reducing his revenues from gambling. Instead, we see pretty well a flat estimate, $117 million to $114 million, down by $3 million. I do not know why that was suggested, because there has been no real effect of reducing the number of machines in the Province as a result of the policy, not until the end of this year.

There are ways that can be undertaken to, in fact, decrease the amount of money lost, even by addicts, in gambling. There are ways of doing it, Mr. Chairman, that could provide some kind of deterrence, that could provide protection for players. There are five that are identified in Dr. MacMullen's study. He talks about player protection measures. He talks about sequestration practices. That means, obviously, making it harder to get at some of those machines. Consumer awareness, that means advertising of the dangers. Advertising controls; instead of allowing Atlantic Lottery Corporation out there encouraging people to gamble, there should be some sort of control on that; and, precautionary prevention.

These kinds of measures could assist in decreasing the number of people gambling. Actually, the controls that could be placed on these machines, in fact, are being used to do the opposite. Instead of discouraging people from gambling, in fact, these machines are programmed to encourage the people to gamble, to encourage people, who are problem gamblers, to keep spending their money and losing their money. Until the Atlantic Lottery Corporation starts introducing measure that are going to protect problem gamblers - there are lots of ways to doing it; there are lots of experts who could do it - what we have, really, is the exploitation - these are Dr. MacMullen's words - the exploitation of vulnerable consumers, or vulnerable customers he calls them, not consumers; the exploitation of vulnerable customers.

That is what the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is doing with the full support of this government, Mr. Chairman, who are raking in the revenues to the tune of $114 million this year, $114 million of people's money, 40 per cent of which comes from problem gamblers. Now, if that is the kind of revenue that this Province wants to run its programs on, then I cannot support that. There has to be some accountability here, and I am looking to this Minister of Finance to stand in his place and respond to these concerns, because these are real concerns that ordinary, everyday people in this Province are facing every day because they are faced with the loss of income, they are faced with the loss of their bank accounts, they are faced with desperate financial circumstances because they have fallen victim to the gambling machines and the addiction that results, or problem gamblers that result.

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance - and I have lots of respect for the Minister of Finance. He stood in his place earlier and talked about the importance of reducing the amount in the consumption of tobacco, a very laudable goal, but they should be equally attentive and equally aggressive in trying to reduce the number of people who are losing their bank accounts, who are losing their homes, in some cases, as my friend from Labrador West has pointed out, losing their very lives because they cannot face the prospect of having to deal with the fact that they have lost all of their money and are now desperate and have been failures.

My friend from Labrador West has read into the record of this House a letter that was found after a young woman from Corner Brook had, in fact, killed herself because she could not face the consequences of having lost so much money as a problem gambler. This is a very real, a very important, a very cogent social problem in our Province today, and the victims of this are, for the most part, lower income earners, less educated people, and elderly citizens.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I ask the Minister of Finance and Minister of Health to address those concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

If the hon. minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We are in Committee, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair apologizes. The minister will not be closing debate. We are in Committee.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the questions on this bill, I would assume he is talking about the Tobacco Tax bill, would that be correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because the questions pertaining to the bill - anything pertaining to the bill are very straightforward. We increased -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did not take it as being within the context of this bill I mentioned. We increased cigarettes by one cent; fine cut tobacco by five cents a gram. We did not change it on cigars. That is what it went up. The revenue from that is $6.4 million, I think I said to the member earlier. Based on cigarettes, it is three point two on that. Now, it is a part of our strategy, of our whole wellness strategy, our cessation program with smoking. It is one of the initiatives. It is not revenue based on that but we have indicated it is a part of the whole health plan and we followed through in health with significant areas in it, too. But, as to the bill, on its initiative, it is very straightforward. It is a finance - the context of this bill is a revenue thing. I give notice on a smoking and aspect bill and banning it and all the aspects of it. I certainly do not mind some questions, but the questions - I took them to be - were outside the context of this bill. If he has questions on that I will either answer them or I will defer them to an appropriate time when I can answer them.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know the minister was not able to pay full attention to my remarks when I spoke, so I will just repeat some of the things that I said and ask him direct questions.

I was praising the minister for his motives in reducing the amount of consumption for smoking and praising him for the fact that even though he is the Minister of Finance, he does not really need the money. He is not doing it for financial reasons. So, the question was: Is he spending the $9.6 million that he is going to get on further reduction of consumption by supporting a major program, an additional major program to convince young people not to smoke in the first place? Is he putting the money into ensuring that anybody, for example, who is in receipt of income support has access to non-smoking programs or smoking cessation programs?

We hear stories all the time about people not being able to get access to the patch or not being able to get non-smoking programs because they do not have the money. They are being told by social workers to spend your income support money on it or spend the money you are saving on cigarettes, all of those kinds of answers being given, and the minister is picking up an additional $9.6 million. Is he prepared to use that money - since he does not want the money. He is saying he does not want the money. He is doing it for higher motives, and these motives I agree with.

I am asking him: Is he using that additional money to provide for more non-smoking campaigns, greater advertising campaigns, further support for the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco?

This is in addition to the legislation. I have no problem with the legislation. I welcome the new legislation on second-hand smoke in bars and all of that. I am just saying, in terms of the money, if you have the $9.6 million, are we going to see an additional $9.6 million worth of activity in helping people to stop smoking, in convincing the public, the children, not to start, et cetera, or is he going to keep the revenue anyway, even though his aim is actually to deter people from smoking?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did not say we do not want the revenue. I want to clarify that point. I did not say we do not want the revenue. We get income tax. We get HST. We get tobacco tax. We get numerous taxes. I did not say government does not want the revenue. What we will use it for, and what we have done in this Budget - I will say to the member, we have used $53.5 million, new money into health, over and above the $59.5 million that channelled through this year in federal programs. Out of that $53.5 million new dollars, $23.2 million in total - $23.2 million is out of the $59.5 million, actually.

We have used money to put into programs; $2.4 million into public health. Wellness strategies, part of the promotion of proper health. Food in schools for example, the healthy foods in school program. We have looked at the prevention of certain asbestos injurious to your health in the overall promotion and prevention campaign. Dealing with aspects within the school itself, proper eating, proper habits; all part of a major program. We looked at dealing with addictions, generally, in government; significant investment in new money. We put $53.5 million of provincial revenues that we took in on taxation, you could say, going into the program over and above.

So, yes, there is more than $9.6 million being spent. There is six times $9.6 million new money being spent in our Province over and above what we have on an item there. Not often do you say this much income tax goes to this program, tobacco tax goes to this program, your liquor tax goes to this program, your other tax goes to that program. It goes into a consolidated revenue fund of our Province. We have made a very significant contribution to enhance the public health initiatives that are going to make people healthier in the future. This is part of a strategy, overall, deliberate strategy on smoking. Does $9.6 million go exactly into smoking? My guess will certainly be: no. Does it go into other initiatives that are a part of the big picture and that process? Yes. Is it specifically earmarked? No. It is very unlikely that revenues are earmarked for specific sources like that, but it is a part and it is a significant contribution. We are really pleased that we have had a significant investment. We have had numerous people stand, and people in the public, and say that it was the biggest investment in public health in the history of the Province. There is a strategy moving forward now that is going to enhance that, from everything down in the school system, independent of - within health initiatives, we have put $1 million in physical education equipment into schools, more money into school programs, compulsory physical education and those types of initiatives, even beyond our health budget. They are out of another department on top.

If you look at all the aspects of dealing with education, health and so on - I am just confining it to what we are using in the health budget. We have a lot of initiatives. My colleague from Lab West indicated he felt, that for Labrador it is probably the best budget he has seen in the area there. There are a lot of positives. Everything is not there that everybody wanted. When you have a $493 projected deficit - and we budgeted $45 million from the Atlantic Accord into that, that we don't have yet. We will have to add that on.

MR. HARRIS: If the NDP has its way, we will get it pretty soon.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is saying. Did he say the NDP will make sure we get it or we won't get it?

MR. HARRIS: If the NDP has it way, we will get it pretty soon.

MR. SULLIVAN: I won't comment on what is going on in the House of Commons, to be honest with you, because I don't think it is appropriate under this bill to comment. Those are political comments to make outside the House. I won't make here.

I will say, it is a tremendous investment. I am delighted the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's colleague thinks it is a great budget and contribution. I am sure the member himself probably thinks it is a good budget, because the dollars are being put in and we are putting teeth in it. We are looking at prevention, because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The only real solution to solving the health problems in our Province overall is by getting at the cause of these, not taking on certain practices, certain habits, certain aspects that are going to do that. That is why I think it has been very positive. About six times what we take in, in increased revenue on tobacco, is going in just from our coffers alone. That is a pretty significant contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know the minister didn't want to talk about anything else, but of course he did. One of the things he talked about was the $2 billion that we are supposed to get from the Atlantic Accord that the minister has budgeted for the interest on for the next eight or ten months, that he hoping to get, I think some $12 million per month, if we actually get it in our hands.

What I said across the House is that if the NDP in Ottawa get their way that money will be forthcoming very quickly, Mr. Chairman, as soon as the federal budget is passed.

What is shocking, Mr. Chairman, is that this arrangement that was made to get that budget passed by the NDP in Ottawa, which will provide an additional $4 billion for programs that people need, is being called by his federal leader, some sort of a deal with the devil. It is going to provide money for housing across this country, provide money for programs for people who need better energy consumption in their homes, for people who need access to public transit, and for all of those positive programs that are going to happen. Not only that, the Budget measures include the transfer to Newfoundland and Labrador of $2 billion right away, not in some faraway future that we might not ever get to, because we know that if the federal Conservatives have to form a government with the Bloc, that will not be a team that will deliver the Atlantic Accord, I assure you, because the Bloc will not support that. The Bloc will not support that, so we need to have that passed now, but that is a digression.

I do have to say, I still laud the minister's motives when he says he wants to reduce the consumption of tobacco, but I am not sure that I accept and praise his methods because he says he is going to keep the money. He is going to keep the $9.6 million, and he does not have any specific plans to ensure that anti-smoking plans are increased. He did not say anything about the fact that people on income support still do not have access to medicines and other methods that will help them quit smoking.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, despite that, if we get more calls from individuals who cannot get access to the patch or cannot get access to medications because they are on social assistance, that I can call him, as the Minister of Health, and get that problem resolved for individuals who are in need of that particular kind of protection.

The other matter that I raised when the minister was not able to listen was that, if the minister is so concerned about decreasing the amount of consumption of tobacco in this Province, which is a laudable goal, than surely he should be concerned about decreasing the amount of gambling in this Province, and particularly the amount of problem gambling going on, and instead of sitting back and collecting $114 million worth of revenue from Atlantic Lotto, 40 per cent of which, it appears, by analogy, comes from problem gamblers, from the 6 per cent or 7 per cent of people who are problem gamblers, if our experience is the same as Nova Scotia and Alberta and Ontario, and there is no reason to think it would not be, if this minister were concerned about that, and that perhaps some $40 million to $45 million of this money actually comes from problem gamblers, if he was concerned about that, then he would be acting much more quickly on any proposal to reduce the number of gambling machines in this Province, or insisting that Atlantic Lotto stop exploiting vulnerable people who are losing their savings, losing their homes, and sometimes losing their lives because of problem gambling.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, when he spoke earlier, tried to put some laudable motives on what he is doing, and I praise those motives, but if he is really sincere about trying to help people who are consumed by addictions, whether they be tobacco or gambling, then he would follow those measures. He would also listen to what is being said by the Member for Labrador West about the expansion of gambling opportunities now being perpetrated by Atlantic Lottery Corporation so they can reach further into people's pockets, get more money and pass it over to the government.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfair, it is immoral, it is unjust, and a stop should be put to it. Governments have to recognize that they cannot go on exploiting vulnerable people in this Province and getting them to pay $30 million or $40 million or $45 million into the public coffers because they happen to be addicted to gambling. Something should be done about it, Mr. Chairman.

I have been engaged in this debate for the last, I guess, thirteen years. In1993, I think it was, that the previous government introduced these. They introduced them because, they said, if we do not do it the mafia will. Well, they might as well have the mafia there, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think the mafia would be any more rapacious in terms of exploiting vulnerable people than the Atlantic Lottery Corporation has been, particularly when it comes to VLTs and the exploitation of problem gamblers by this public corporation that we, the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, have a significant ownership in.

They should be brought to heel, Mr. Chairman. If I were on the Public Accounts Committee, I would be moving a motion to bring the Executive Director of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation before the Public Accounts Committee and explain himself or herself, as to how they are collecting their money, who they are collecting it from, what their methods are, what psychological programming are they putting into these machines to make sure that they extract this money from vulnerable people. They should be hauled on the carpet, Mr. Chairman, and they should be held accountable.

We do not have anybody on the Public Accounts Committee in our Party, Mr. Chairman, but I can assure you that if I were sitting on the Public Accounts Committee, or if the Member for Labrador West were sitting on the Public Accounts Committee, there would be accountability by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation before that Committee.

I see that the Government House Leader says it is a good idea. Well, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that one of his caucus who happens to be on the Public Accounts Committee, or someone on this side of the House who is on the Public Accounts Committee, or the Chair, whom I understand is the Member for the Bay of Islands, will, in fact, bring officials of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation before the Public Accounts Committee and go through its grilling.

I will ask, or the Member of Labrador West will probably be asking, to sit in on that Public Accounts Committee and ask some questions and participate in it, because that would be a very valuable exercise, Mr. Chairman, and may bring about some reform to the kind of policies that not just this government - and I am not blaming it on this government in particular, Mr. Chairman. They inherited a gambling mentality that is not - and it was not solely the fault of the previous government either, so I am going to let a few people off the hook here. It was a gambling mentality that overtook governments across this country.

I think we have to recognize what it is doing to our citizens, and we have to try and wean governments from it. Now that we have some increased revenues from other sources, from royalties from the offshore, from the Atlantic Accord, we have to use some of that money to start ratcheting down the amount of money that is being extracted from vulnerable people all across Newfoundland and Labrador. I know every member in this House knows people, knows families, knows circumstances, where lives have been ruined, where finances have been ruined, where people have lost houses, where people have lost relatives through this addiction, and something has to be done about it. Instead of just pointing fingers at one another, which I am doing a little bit of today, let's face it, we have to actually get down to work and try and find some solution. Maybe the starting point would be the Public Accounts Committee getting these guys on the carpets and asking them how they collect their money. Are they aware of studies which show that 40 per cent-plus of their revenues come from the 6 per cent or 7 per cent problem gamblers, and what are they doing to reduce the risk to vulnerable people in their operations?

That has to be a starting point, because we have to start ensuring that government policy and government corporations are not exploiting vulnerable people through gambling addiction. We have to put a stop to that, and I hope that this suggestion is followed through.

As I say, we are not on the Public Account Committee, neither the Member for Labrador West nor I, but if we were we would be doing this, and we urge people who are on the Public Accounts Committee - and perhaps we will have to write a letter to the Member for Bay of Islands - he is the Chair, I think, of the Public Accounts Committee - and ask his Committee to undertake a significant inquiry into the actions of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and to invite the Member for Labrador West to fully participate in that Committee to undergo that review, and hopefully something can be done in a positive way to tackle this problem that - we see it in our books every year, $117 million last year, $114 million projected for next year, of money, apparently 40 per cent, maybe $40 million, $45 million, comes from problem gamblers. There is something wrong with that, and we should start digging into it and finding ways of solving it, not letting Atlantic Lotto do in Newfoundland and Labrador what they are not allowed to do in Nova Scotia, what they are not allowed to do in New Brunswick, is now open up a new form of gambling. It is something that has to be addressed.

I know the Minister of Finance has responsibilities for Atlantic Lotto. I do not know what kind of oversight he actually does, except to make sure he gets the revenue, but something has to be done about this, Minister, and I say to all members of the House, and we should all work to try and solve this problem.

I hope the minister is able to address that. I realize it is not directly related to the Tobacco Tax Act, but it is certainly related and relevant to the motives that he put forth as to why he was bringing in the Tobacco Tax Act to decrease the consumption of tobacco and to deter people from doing it, similar types of motives to be used to tackle another significant problem in our Province and that is gambling addiction and the gambling revenues that ensues from it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman .

CLERK: Resolution: "That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco."

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

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Resolution is carried.

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." ( Bill 5)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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 enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the committee report Bill 5, An Act to Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 5 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Motion 3, that the Committee begin discussion or debate on Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.

CHAIR: Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill to amend the Loan and Guarantee Act relates to two specific guarantees that the government has agreed to and has approved. I will just give a brief synopsis on each one. They are fairly self explanatory. I will just, in case there is a rationale, answer some potential questions.

The Avalon Health Care Institutions Board had a line of credit, basically, of up to $7 million and they wanted to have an extension in that line of credit. What we approved, Mr. Chair, is that we would approve anything in excess of $7 million up to a maximum of $13.5 million, which would be an additional $6.5 million. That would remain in place until March 31, 2006, or until such time as the plan to restructure and deal with the total deficit of boards in the Province is broken down to $125 million. They will come back with a plan over a ten-year period, not counting this year. We put in an extra $20 million to help deal with their budgetary problems this year and an extra $11 million to deal with the inflationary aspect. That is $31 million this year. When you look at these two items, that is over and above various direct money into other program costs, and for various equipment and various announcements we made in the Budget.

While we are aware that the Regional Integrated Health Authorities have been formed - there are four of these in the Province. The Eastern one encompasses the Avalon institutional health board. That is under that umbrella now, but the guarantee is in place on that. They had a line of credit up to $7 million. When they were up on their line of credit we wanted to ensure that health services provided by this institution continued. The public funds to a very significant extent, almost a complete extent in many cases, health care here in our Province - we felt that it was important to preserve the integrity of the health care service in our Province. It was on that basis that was approved and, of course, I indicated what may happen in the future.

The other item here was related to the Stephenville Airport. With the situation at Stephenville Airport, they applied for protection from bankruptcy and somebody had to step in. They did not go into receivership, but a company specializing in trusteeship - basically, a trustee had to go in and was entrusted with the responsibility to be able to guide that through its period in which it sought protection. We felt that we did not want to do guarantees on facilities out there that are independent from government. What this specifies here in this guarantee - and it is there in the note, item 2 - while a term 50 guarantee was put up to allow the operation to continue during this period there were significant receivables in excess of $350,000. We are protected, we are secured, to an assignment of the airport's accounts, the money that flows through on receivables and so on, sale of fuel and all of these things, for example. It is a big item. We have protection for the taxpayers of our Province on an assignment of the receivables on its operation until it can get through this restructuring process. Hopefully, in the future it will operate on a viable basis and be able to serve the Southwest part of Province, in particular. That is a very important aspect.

We wanted an opportunity, not to do a handout but at least to give a degree of support to that area because it serves from Port aux Basques, the whole Southwest corner, the Stephenville area, the whole Bay St. George region, including the Port au Port Peninsula there. There are a significant number of people who depend on it for services. We wanted to do something that was reasonable and we did not want to do something that would help directly fund money into it. We have protection, we have security, on the money that we provide, and a guarantee there. It is going through the process right now of restructuring. Hopefully, in the future, it will be a viable entity and serve the people in that area for years to come.

That, from our point of view, from a financial point of view, is the role that was played in this process. We have looked at it and we feel is a responsible course of action, Mr. Chair, on both of these initiatives here. Hopefully, everything achieves the desired purpose, particularly in the second one that is now still a separate corporation out there, whereas of course the Avalon institutions board, as I indicated, is absorbed into the Eastern Region Integrated Health Authority. That is the gist and the background there on each of these.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Regarding the response on Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, there are several questions that arise from this particular bill. I know that the minister has been on record in this past Budget as saying that - in fact, one of the key statements that he made when talking about health care in this Province was, that no area of expenditure is larger or more important in this year's Budget than heath and community services.

I am a little bit concerned about this particular loan guarantee for a number of reasons. The minister states, the "The Order in Council from Cabinet 2004-425 authorized a loan guarantee for the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board, or a successor health authority..." - well, they have already been absorbed now into the Eastern health care regional authority - "... to cover that portion of the board's $13.5 million credit facility in excess of $7 million." The minister explained that they have a current line of credit for $7 million and they need to expand that line of credit up to a total of $13 million. In the same breath, the minister has already said that boards across our Province have an accumulated deficit of $125 million. That is $125 million! What this government has done for this year only, they have provided $20 million for what they call a stabilization fund to stabilize the four regional integrated health care boards throughout our Province to get them through this year. I have not heard of any plans that government has in their possession for any board around this Province. They recognize their debt and their deficits, but they don't have any plan to have an orderly repayment arrangement of those particular debts that government is on the hook for.

Even though the minister stands in his place and he says, the maximum amount of the Province's guarantee is, therefore, $6.5 million, in essence the government is really responsible for all the debts of the health care boards and government agencies throughout this Province. In fact, that was the purpose of putting forward an accrual based budget. Every government board and agency out there, actually government is responsible for all their financial obligations.

The minister goes on to say that the guarantee will terminate on March 31, 2006 or the earlier date that may be appropriate after a plan for deficit reduction has been implemented. Now, he has said in his statement there, or an earlier date that may be appropriate after a plan for a deficit reduction has been implemented. Well, there are a couple of glaring realities here in this particular bill. Number one, there is no plan by the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board for repayment of this loan guarantee that will come due in less than one year. It is due March 31, 2006. Can you tell me, Mr. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, do you have a plan at your office for the Avalon Health Care Board to repay that line of credit that the government has gone out on a limb and guaranteed today? He has openly stated that they don't have a plan.

When they get around to making a plan, do you know what is going to happen? There are going to be service cuts and there are going to be staff cuts. That is the glaring reality here today, that this particular board has exceeded government's authorization. They have gone out and they have spent money that was not approved. Government recognized this and in order to get them in line with the Financial Administration Act, they are putting forward today an approval, hopefully, if it is approved here in this House, that will put their finances in order in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. In essence, they have spent money that they were not authorized to spend. Now they have a line of credit for $13.5 million and they have no idea how they are going to repay it to this government and the taxpayers of our Province. They have no plan for an orderly repayment.

How can a board, the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board, pay back $13 million in less than one year? Can anybody, with any kind of reasonable intelligence in this House of Assembly, tell me how a health care board, that has a current deficit of - it serves 54,000 people. It serves 54,000 people, and just the ordinary cost of doing business - inflation rates for one year would probably increase that board's operating cost by about 7 per cent. Government believes, by coming here today and approving a loan guarantee for the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board, that they will be in a financial position to repay government that by the end of March 31, 2006. That is an impossibility.

This particular board, the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board, it looks after facilities - the Carbonear General Hospital. The Carbonear General Hospital has eighty acute care beds. It looks after the Old Cottage Hospital Building in Old Perlican, which is in the process of being replaced with a new modern health care centre. That particular facility will have four inpatient beds and will continue to provide a full range of services. It also looks after Dr. W.H. Newhook Community Health Centre at Whitbourne. It maintains three observation holding beds and provides a full range of services. It also takes into account the Harbour Lodge Nursing Home. That is in Carbonear. It is a long-term care facility that has 127 Level II and Level III nursing home beds, and two beds for respite palliative care. It also is the umbrella for the Interfaith Citizen's Home, which is a long-term care facility maintaining fifty-four Level III nursing home beds. It looks after the Placentia Health Centre, a site for ten acute care beds and seventy-five nursing home beds, Level I, Level II and Level III.

So, these must be troubling for people living and expecting to obtain services under the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board because now they have an obligation to this government, by this government agreeing to guarantee a loan, a line of credit, for $13.5 million. They have an obligation now that this must be repaid by March 31 next year; less than a year away. What does that mean? That can only mean one thing. The health care boards have their budgets. They are not going to have any new revenues for this year. It means, for people under the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board, beware. There are going to be huge cuts coming down the tube and there are going to be changes in service delivery to health care patients in that particular area, which is very sad.

Before my time is used up, I want to also talk about the Stephenville Airport Corporation. I know that the Stephenville Airport Corporation has found themselves in an awkward position over the past year or so and they are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. I know that the Member for Stephenville East, and Port au Port, have been out trying to solidify the Stephenville Airport Corporation. That would be good for all of the Province and naturally, we want the Stephenville Airport to succeed.

My question to the Minister of Finance would be - there was an effort made, I think over the past twelve months, for a direct grant of money to the Stephenville Airport in buying land adjacent to the airport. What is the situation on that particular venture? Also, government provided $150,000 for the trustees. The trustees are Ernest and Young. Has that money been spent to date, I would like to ask the minister? They were also doing a financial review for the corporation. Is that review done?

In addition to the bankruptcy review and restructuring review, R.P. Erickson and Associates have been hired by government to carry out a comprehensive report of Stephenville Airport. That final report was to be completed in eight weeks, or March 1. I guess that eight weeks is up now. I would like to know what the status of that report was? What was their findings when they did that report, and when will that report be made public?

Also, since government is getting into the airport business, will they be following that trend of assisting the Stephenville Airport if some other airport around the Province finds themselves in financial difficulty? These are very important questions. This bill would have the taxpayers of this Province on the hook for almost $15 million that they were not expecting prior to today.

These are the kinds of questions, and the Minister of Finance stood in his place and said the guarantee for providing a loan guarantee for the Stephenville Airport Corporation would be secured through an assignment of the airport's accounts receivables and will terminate once the restructuring process has been completed.

Now, how secure does he feel that particular assignment is in the case of bankruptcy? Let's face it, you are getting less than fifty cent dollars in the case of bankruptcies, maybe twenty-five cent dollars, depending on who owes the money.

These are very valid questions, and I hope that the Minister of Finance has been taking note of them because, if he has not, I will have to ask him again once he responds to this particular bill.

These are money bills, and what we are looking at today is putting the government at risk for $15 million. This is rather surprising, that you could see a loan guarantee coming from a health care board. This is rather surprising . I thought the message coming from the Budget last year was that all health care boards would have to operate within their budget allotment, but we can plainly see today that has not occurred. They have overspent and, for that reason, they are out of order with the Financial Administration Act for running financial entities in this Province.

The government, in their wisdom - I don't think they had any other choice. If they did not authorize the deficit that the board had in place, they had only one choice. The money was not allotted in the Budget, so what does government do in that predicament? They decide that they will sign a loan guarantee for extending their line of credit, extending a line of credit up to $13.5 million for the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board.

There are very firm orders in place with this bill here. The bill is Bill 14, and it says quite clearly that a plan must be presented to government for an orderly repayment of this $13.5 million.

From the expression on the Finance Minister's face today, there has been no plan; there has been no plan given to government. What does that mean for the Carbonear General Hospital? This facility has eighty acute care beds. Will there be closures of hospital beds in Carbonear? That is the question. The services that they do in Carbonear now are ambulatory, chemotherapy, and outpatient surgery. Will those people who are taking chemotherapy in Carbonear have to be subjected to coming to the Cancer Clinic in St. John's? Are these services going to be cut? There are diagnostic services, including EKGs, laboratory, mammography, respiratory therapy, stress testing, ultrasound and X-ray, general surgery -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have an opportunity to question the Minister of Finance, I am sure.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 14 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

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

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

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: We will deal with Bill 5, followed by Bill 14, if that is okay with the Government House Leader.

It is moved and seconded that a resolution relative to Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): A resolution: That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

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

I move that Bill 5, an Act with respect to tobacco tax, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, Bill 5. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, carried. (Bill 5)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 5)

On motion, Bill 5 read a first time.

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

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

I move that Bill 5 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 5)

Motion, Bill 5 read a second time.

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

I move that Bill 5 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax 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 Tobacco Tax Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. ( Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Committee of the Whole Resolution relative to Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Resolution: " That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

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

I move that Bill 14 be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 14)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, " An Act To Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, carried. ( Bill 14).

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 14).

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time.

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

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

I was about to move the Order Paper, as some people are saying, but that is not true.

I move that Bill 14 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14, An Act to Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 ( Bill 14)

Motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," read a second time. (Bill 14)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I move that Bill 14 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, be read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 14)

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 Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14).

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

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

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this bill be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 8 is An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act. In this particular bill, there are numerous things. When government introduced a tax on that income as opposed to a tax on federal tax, there was a whole array of more technical changes that had to be done to bring things in line with federal. There is a whole scope of aspects here.

For example, I will just touch on some of the points. In paragraph one: Some are very minor and some are to protect people from an erosion of income from tax purposes by shifting systems. For example, number one is very brief. The first clause, a taxation year of a person. Really, the old act had taxation year of a person in italics and it should only be ‘taxation year'. Some are as minor as that.

I will use some examples. Some people earn income in other parts of the world, and how does this income get treated for tax purposes in our Province? In other words, if you are a resident in our Province by the end of December and file your taxes, you would then get any credits applied to our Province, but if you are in another Province at the time and earn income and so on and moved here, you would not. It is a means to be able to apply accurately and trim up some of the inequities that were present in legislation. Some are methods of calculation.

Overseas, for example, dealing with federal credits: Generally, when overseas international is done on the federal tax and system applies, there could be agreements between provinces and it would be appropriately applied to income here in our Province. When the federal tax changed, for instance - I will just use an example, when our tax was a percent of the federal tax -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and when the federal tax was reduced - actually, the former government brought in tax on net income, which meant that our tax was a percent of the federal tax and they shifted that away. Because if the federal government gave us a drop in taxes, ours was a percentage, our Province lost revenue. So, the former government said we cannot have the federal government lowering their tax. We are a percentage of theirs and not lose revenue. So we have to separate that and do that to make sure we get this extra revenue. That was one of the basis behind it and the principle I agree with. I agree with that principle because why should the federal government be able to change their rate and affect the money going to taxpayers of our pocket. That should be a provincial decision. I agree with tax on net income or Tony, we will call it, system as opposed to a tax as a percentage of federal tax.

Some other clauses in the bill, I will just touch on some as I glance through it. For instance, section 18 applies to make sure that it is applicable - the credit transfer applies in our Province. There are other ones, for example, like the direct tax credit and the overseas tax credit. That is referenced in section 20, the dividend tax credit. It is based on a definition that has now changed. For instance, when your tax was based on a definition and that definition has now changed, we have to adjust and do an amendment to reflect that change. Every time the federal changes, you cannot change it every single week or every month so you bring a group together and make those particular changes so it will reflect what the change was prior to an amendment.

For instance, clause 11, I will just make reference to that. We brought in the labour-sponsored venture capital fund and there was no provision then to deal with that because it is new. So, clause 11, or paragraph 23(2) made reference and in section 45(1) we have inserted the labour-sponsored venture capital fund. So, some credits you can get. Like, if you were to participate and contribute to the labour-sponsored venture capital fund and if you have other credits before that, that you couldn't carry forward to another year, and then you looked at the labour-sponsored beyond that, you might never get the benefit of your contribution under the labour-sponsored venture capital fund, or LSVCC. So we put the ones up that you could not carry forward, to give them a priority to allow an individual to benefit by paying money into that particular fund for investment for businesses to be able to operate here in our Province.

Harmonization with the federal - for example, there are aspects here of federal credits used before provincial credits in calculation of taxes.

Looking through some of the other clauses, enable credits to be more current in light of changing family circumstances; like in section 34, clause 34 here, for example.

These are just some of the many, many aspects in this that are getting things current that have not been for a period of time after the change on tax on net income and to reflect things that individuals can benefit in certain aspects, and our Province can benefit in areas as opposed to some other areas when someone files a tax here in our Province and we are the resident Province. There are a whole host of complexities, a whole host of numerous technical aspects in this particular bill, but it is hopeful to bring it all up current here and to get things on stream so that we can move forward with the same set, the same equity of rules that has been applied because of changes that have occurred over the last number of years.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to respond to Bill 8, just presented by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

This is kind of a complex piece of legislation but I guess, basically, it is just to react to changes that have been made over the past couple of years with Revenue Canada and we, as a Province, need to make the same adjustments.

I think it was two or three years ago that most provinces within Canada signed an agreement with the federal government, that any changes that would be made to a provincial income tax legislation could be reflected through the federal Income Tax Act. In fact, we, as a Province here, if we make a decision to adjust our particular Newfoundland and Labrador income tax rate or if we want to collect from those receiving income tax refunds, we have an opportunity here in our Province that if we wish the federal government to collect, make adjustments or recover monies on our behalf, we have to notify the federal government of that agreed change, on or before July of each year, so it will be relevant for the tax year that is about to happen.

Many of these tax changes that are indicated in this particular Bill 8 will reflect many of the changes that have been changed by the federal government and put us in sync with the federal Income Tax Act. However, I would like to draw to the attention of the Finance Minister, that one of the purposes of this particular income tax has come to light in recent weeks, and that was the opportunity for this Province - for people who have outstanding debt with our provincial government. The last resort would be the federal income tax for those receiving refunds. Our government can now notify Revenue Canada to make the last ditch attempt to recover monies owing to our own provincial government through the Income Tax Act.

That was brought home about a few weeks ago, in particular, when we learned that our provincial government has hired eight new tax collectors for the purpose of collecting school tax. Now, the school tax was discontinued in our Province in 1990. It has been collected ever since, I suppose, at an ad hoc pace, according to this government. Yet, in fact, there is only $10 million owing in its entirety to the school tax liability of this Province. What is striking is the fact that government has on its books over $30 million in interests that they want to collect from taxpayers in our Province, some 28,000 of them. They are determined that they are going to do this at all cost. In fact, the eight tax collectors they have hired, their employment is for two years only. They will be bringing forward their best ditch effort to collect the remaining school tax that is owed to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am currently working on several of those requests that have come my way, not only from constituents of Grand Falls-Buchans but from constituents all over our Province. Several of those are still pending now with the Department of Finance. I have spoken to the Deputy Minister of Finance. He is working on looking at cases that I have referred to him but I still do not have a reply from him, and that was about five weeks ago. Although, I have had several follow-up phone calls. I know he is pretty busy at this time, but I would hope that he will get to this pretty soon because I will just keep bugging him until he does.

What has been alarming in this particular treatment of the taxpayers of our Province is the fact that - in one particular case, a young single mother had an exemption, that she would not have to pay school tax because of her financial position twelve or thirteen years ago. Since then, she has gotten a career for herself and she has become established. Now the government wants to collect, I think it is $3,000, on a bill that was about $700 originally. This is a bit hard-nosed, in my estimation. They have a sliding scale and they will take off part of the interest based on your financial ability at this particular point in your life, and whether or not you have received notices, and whether or not you have responded to these notices, and whether or not you have had an exemption, and so on. This, in a lot of cases, is compassion.

There is no reason for a government - I mean, it is almost like mafia tactics for anyone owing $100 to have to pay $1,300 ten or twelve years later. There must be some rule of principle, integrity. It is okay to collect taxpayers' money, there is nothing wrong with that, but to go to those extremes that you would be charging compound interest on a bill of $100 and having to face it today at $1,300, that is exorbitant and it is extreme.

Those same people who cannot get any deduction, or cannot find any reduction on their school tax bill, government has looked at it and now they are going to their MHA, they are going to the public, they are going to the media, and government have their feet dug in on this. They will not let up. In fact, what they are doing now is notifying these particular taxpayers that the last straw is that I am going to attach your income tax refund.

Let's face it, everyone out there filing an income tax return April 30, those who are lucky enough to receive a tax refund, they have plans for that money. You take a young family now, and even all the families out there today in this crab dispute, anyone expecting a tax refund cannot go without that tax refund. More than likely they have it spent. Then, to have government take that tax refund out their income tax return as the last straw, I think that is a bit hard-nosed.

This government lacks compassion if they not willing to be flexible, look at every case and say: You did your best to notify us ten years ago. Your situation has changed. Let's sit down and talk about this.

We are not the mafia. We cannot expect to receive 5,000 per cent interest on our money. That is not the way we operate here. You are out working now. We are going to expect you to pay income taxes in the future, and contribute to the overall provincial economy, so let's do something here - but, we have heard the opposite. We have heard stories from all over the Province, and I have many to work on. I would say to this government, be a little bit more flexible. These are people who are contributing to our economy. They recognize they have a bill to pay, but they do not expect to pay compound interest upon compound interest, some as high as 5,000 per cent. That is a bit too far to talk about.

Another measure that I want to talk about here is the fact that this government, their first order of business when they came to this House of Assembly, the first time they sat in this House of Assembly, was the spring of 2004. They did not sit during the fall because they got elected on October 22, 2003. They spent about six months getting ready for the House of Assembly. Their first order of business, when they came to the House of Assembly, was to cancel outright an income tax credit piece of legislation that we, as the former Administration, were offering to new graduates, to entice them to stay here in this Province. Their first order of business was to come in and say, we are not going to acknowledge this at all. We are going to stamp that out. The first thing they did was come to this House of Assembly and say: I am going to cancel this legislation.

We fought vigorously, because what it meant to young people who would graduate and decide to work in our Province, when they started to pay off the provincial portion of their Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan, the previous government were offering them a tax credit of up to 30 per cent. For every $1,000 they paid on their Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan, the previous government were offering them a tax credit of $300. Now, $300 in the pocket of a young person or a young family does not stay in the pocket of a young person or a young family. That goes directly into our economy again. The idea of that was, a lot of young people, as soon as they get educated, leave our Province and go to the mainland where they think the grass is greener. They have an opportunity to probably derive a larger income, but I am sure the cost of living is larger too than in this Province. They have the impression that they can pay off their student loans faster by getting a larger salary in a different province.

Our reason for bringing in that piece of legislation - and it would cost $3 million a year, $3 million to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the taxpayers, but with that $3 million program young people would be able to pay off their student loans and get debt free quicker so they could invest in cars, invest in houses, and get ready to set up their lives for themselves and their families, and start to contribute to our own provincial economy sooner. That was the idea of that legislation.

This new government that is sitting in this House today, thirty-three members, decided that was not important and their first plan was to squash that legislation. People in this Province never got an opportunity to really look at the benefits of that and be able to have that money in their pockets and be able to spend it earlier.

This piece of legislation has good points. It is basically, as the minister would describe, housekeeping. What housekeeping does is puts our income tax legislation in line with the federal government's legislation. I think one of the important aspects of it is particularly for disabled persons. This is something that wasn't available in previous legislation. It says, "Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 12 of the Act to allow a disabled person who does not reside in the province on the last day of the taxation year to transfer excess disability credits to a resident of the province who is supporting that person." I know of several disabled persons who are attending university outside our Province, and the parents at home are mostly standing the expenses of that particular young person attending university. This particular clause of Bill 8, section 12, will allow the parents to be able to claim that disability credit even though the young person is not actually a resident of our Province at the last day of the taxation year, April 30.

There is also another section there, "Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 9 of the Act to require that a taxpayer be a resident of the province before receiving a pension credit." Now, I do not see any problem with that. If you are living and working outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, why would you get a provincial pension credit? This is set up with the idea in mind that you are actually living and residing here in this Province.

One of the other interesting parts of this particular bill is the fact that before these legislative changes were brought to this House - take, for instance, a student studying in Alberta. They could receive the student tax credit based on the rate provided by the Alberta government. Now, Newfoundland and Labrador students will receive the student tax credit based on the Newfoundland and Labrador rate, and not the province in which a student is studying. That is very important.

There are many complex issues to this bill, and probably people in this House of Assembly and others watching this telecast today might find them quite boring because a lot of them are just housekeeping issues.

You have to look at the fact that our own university, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and our provincial college, College of the North Atlantic, have been able to attract a great deal of international students. So, when you are passing legislation that is in sync with provincial and federal regulations, international students will have a clearer understanding of their financial commitments as it relates to this Province, and also what they will be up against when they sign up, deciding to enroll in our public college and university.

It is important that anyone doing business in this Province would want to know that this legislation is in line with the federal legislation. For those receiving income in other parts of the world - many of our people from our Province are working all over the world - it is important that our particular provincial income tax be in line with federal income tax for those working outside our Province and country. We have an opportunity now, if we want to make any changes to our provincial taxes throughout the year, no matter what the collections would be, even if it comes to child support or any issue that is paid through the provincial tax system, if we want to attack, I guess, the avenue of last resort, which is Revenue Canada, we have an opportunity now, with the amendments to our particular Income Tax Act, 2000 to be able to do this.

Even in our own system here, I do not know if people are aware of it, if someone has a traffic fine that they do not pay, if they have a permit, a licence, or a fine of any sort that they do not pay, with our computerization now, with our motor registration, it is possible that they will not be able to have their driver's licence renewed, because that is an avenue, through computerization now, where the provincial government has an opportunity to disallow the issuance of a driver's licence for those in the Province who have neglected to pay certain fines and certain obligations to this government. There are all kinds of avenues that can provide flexibility in the Income Tax Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have looked through this Income Tax Act. I have studied it and, in fact, we have had a briefing on this particular act. I believe the measures that are taken in this act will probably satisfy the needs of taxpayers in this Province, probably for the next year or two. This if fluid, it is something that is changing all the time, and as these changes become apparent to this government, and to us as taxpayers, it is our duty to notify government and make them accommodate changes to accommodate taxpayers in this regard.

For now I will sit down, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for this time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Speaker wishes to make a statement. It says: I regret to inform the House that I have been informed by the staff of our Broadcast Centre that the proceedings of the House will not be broadcast this evening due to difficulties with our satellite reservation.

This evening's session of the House will be taped by the Broadcast Centre and will be aired tomorrow evening, May 11, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m.

We apologize for any inconvenience; however, the House is an occasional user of the satellite time and this evening the satellite capacity has been pre-empted by more frequent users. For our viewers throughout the Province, the Speaker wishes to inform them that the House does not own its own satellite and must purchase time on an hourly basis.

In summary, this evening's session of the House will be broadcast tomorrow evening in the same time allocations.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In anticipation of your remarks, I was not going to speak to them when I rose first. I was going to speak to the debate, but let me say, before I start talking about the Income Tax Act, that there have been some discussions about your statement - you having given an advance copy earlier - amongst the Government House Leader and myself and the Opposition House Leader, and I raised the concern that we have, in the past, when the House has been meeting sometimes 1:00 o'clock in the morning, 2:00 o'clock in the morning, with new legislation being brought in and debated, that this was not in keeping with the agreement to televise the House, and that was something we should put an end to. My understanding since then is that it has been agreed that whenever the House is in session satellite time will be arranged.

I understand that the Speaker can only get television time or satellite time when it is available. I am not suggesting, and I did not suggest to the Government House Leader, that the House should not meet tonight. We are dealing with what might generally be called non-controversial legislation. There is no sense of immediacy to the debate that is taking place here, and as long as those who are watching the debates at home are aware that they are not watching the live action from the House of Assembly, which I am sure will be covered by some sort of line underneath saying a broadcast of last night's events, then people will not be fooled.

I would not want, Mr. Speaker, and I put this on the record, I would not want this to be a precedent for any time that the satellite time is not available it is perfectly okay to carry on with House business regardless of what the nature of that business is. I believe the Government House Leader is agreeable to that sentiment, that there are obviously times when what is going on in the House of Assembly is of immediate, urgent, public concern to see what is happening, what is being debated.

If, for example, we were having a debate this evening on the crab fishery and the current crisis, and whether or not there is a way forward being determined today, if there was something like that, then I would have extreme objection to continuing the House of Assembly at night when it is not necessary to do so, because we did not have available house time.

With that being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the legislation now before the House, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, and reflect on a few comments that were made by the Minister of Finance in introducing the bill. These are changes that have a lot of technical advantages with respect to taxpayers in this Province and how certain items are needed to be amended. For example, in the case of the GST, to make the GST credit more responsive to changes in family when a new child is added or a child is all of a sudden not in the custody of both parents but only in the custody of one, and other matters like that. These are technical things that need to be done.

Income tax, Mr. Speaker, is something that is a very significant portion of the revenues of the Province. In fact, personal income tax forms a huge percent of the provincial revenues. In fact, in personal income tax - there is nearly $780 million in personal income tax revenue, according to the estimates for this current fiscal year, and that is some five or six times the amount of corporate income tax, at $175 million per year. So, we collect about five times as much from individuals as we do from corporations. When we compare that to what we collect in tobacco tax, we collect nearly $780 million in provincial income tax, about $112 million in tobacco tax, and $114 million in lottery revenues, which gives an indication where these other taxes come in as a proportion of our revenues.

Income tax is something that everybody dreads having to pay. Although a famous wealthy individual, I think it was someone named Rothschild, said one time: You can't go broke paying income tax. I guess that means, from his point of view - if you had his money you probably would not mind paying a little bit of income tax, but the unfortunate thing is our income tax system is not as progressive as it should be. The notion of progressive income tax is that the more money you have, the more you pay. The way our income tax is structured, often the people who are wealthiest pay, as a percentage of their income, a smaller percentage than people who are less well off. People who are in the $15,000 to $25,000 a year bracket are paying a big chunk of their income in taxes, whether it be in income tax directly through the income tax system or when they, as consumers, use their disposable income to buy goods and services to which a sales tax is attached, a gasoline tax.

The minister talked about imposing additional taxes on tobacco in order to deter consumption of tobacco and to provide a disincentive. Well, you would not know, by looking at the amount of gasoline tax that the minister collects, that he was trying to deter driving by the size of the gasoline tax. So, it is pretty clear that taxes are needed, revenue is needed to carry out government programs, but fairness has to be the hallmark of any taxation system.

I do note, Mr. Speaker, and I do want to commend this government for introducing - or, at least, the idea. They did not introduce it yet but introducing the idea last year, announcing a plan of eliminating provincial income tax on incomes below $12,000. That is something that is a positive step. It would have been a lot more positive if it had actually been introduced at the time it was announced in last year's Budget, not this year's Budget. It is not going to take place until January 1, 2006. So only a portion of this year will be affected by it, but I guess that is the way this government operates. They will announce some good news that is going to happen in a year-and-a-bits time and then they get to announce it again when it actually happens, but there is no actual benefit to people when it is announced.

It is a positive step to say that people whose income is less than $12,000 should not have to pay provincial tax, and that is something that this Province can now do since it has unbundled its taxation system from that of the Government of Canada. There was a time not too long ago when we had a system of income tax which basically said, whatever the federal income tax regime is for personal income tax, the Province will add on a percentage of that. So, for an individual, if they took $5,000 of your income as a tax, then the Province will say: Well, we will say whatever their taxes are, we will take 60 per cent of that and tack it on as a provincial income tax.

Well, since then, Mr. Speaker, we have a new system. I think the finance types and the bureaucrats and the taxation people call it tax on income system for the provinces as opposed to a tax on tax system. We do have the ability now in this Province to devise our own regime for income tax for individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, at least for the provincial portion. You can engage in social policy, you can engage in a different type of income tax regime from one province to the other, and provincial goals can be sought after and achieved through that.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that we have gone far enough in terms of eliminating tax, income tax at least, on people whose income is quite low. Fifteen thousand dollars would be a better place to start than $12,000. Individuals or families with an income of that kind of money are still making less than what the minimum wage would give you if you were employed for a full year. Mr. Speaker, people who earn minimum wage shouldn't have to pay income tax because, after all, their incomes are so low they can barely afford the necessities of life. If you look at the poverty levels of income as they apply to this Province, you would have to raise you exemption much higher than $12,000 in order to ensure that people who are living below the poverty line did not have to pay income tax.

They are still going to be caught, Mr. Speaker, by the tobacco tax if they smoke. Some would say, well so what, but when you are addicted, Mr. Speaker, the tobacco tax is still a burden from a taxation point of view; if you are addicted and are having trouble quitting. Although, I will concur with the Minister of Finance, the acting Minister of Health, that it is a deterrent and I, on balance, support the increase in that tax. I would be a lot happier supporting that increase if the money were being used to increase, by an equivalent amount, the efforts of government to support people who are trying to quit smoking, to encourage people to quite smoking, and to ensure, as best as can be ensured by public policy, that young people who might be inclined to smoke are deterred from doing so by programs, by advertising, by whatever kind of support can be given to the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco and other efforts that have been used to deter young people from smoking.

I do recall, Mr. Speaker, when we talked about this a few years ago, when we had a select committee of the House examine some of the anti-smoking measures, some of the evidence we heard from experts on this was that actually the cost of cigarettes did act as a deterrent to young people from smoking. Young people who might otherwise start smoking were deterred from smoking because of the cost. That actually worked. That reason alone, Mr. Speaker, is sufficient to support an increase in the tobacco tax, because it literally does work. Young people may be induced by lifestyle advertising or whatever to take up smoking, or by peer pressure, but they are not all that stunned, Mr. Speaker, they do respond to prices.

This Province and others have outlawed the so-called kiddie packs. They actually used to call them that, Mr. Speaker, in the tobacco industry, a package of cigarettes which contained four or, I think, five cigarettes in a little package that was sold for a much lesser amount, obviously, than a twenty pack or a twenty-five pack. They called them kiddie packs because they were abused by tobacco companies to market the young people, because they could get them cheaper and buy cigarettes. They do respond to prices.

We do have to recognize that our personal income tax system, now that we have some control over it from a provincial point of view, is, in fact, an arm of social policy. It is a revenue generator, pretty clearly. It is very important to generate revenue, because after all government programs require that we have a taxation system that is designed to share the wealth, that those who have decent, good incomes should pay taxes to support public policy, to support those who do not have such good incomes, to make sure that the public services are available.

I am not one of those, Mr. Speaker, who supports the American notion that we should have less tax, less government, and every person for themselves; the law of the jungle, Mr. Speaker. I am one of those who believes that society should be created and should be operated to be much more egalitarian so that the differences between those on the lower end of the scale and the higher end of the scale are as narrow as they can reasonably be. Reducing that, Mr. Speaker, in other countries such as the Netherlands, such as the Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, we see extremes of wealth and poverty. In other countries such as in North America, such as in the United States, and to, unfortunately, a larger extent in Canada, we see that gap growing.

It is not a surprise, it is not a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that when people are trying to push certain kinds of social policy, they do not compare us to any other country except the United States. They do not look to France and Norway and Germany and other very successful, very wealthy, very progressive societies. They do not point to them and say: Our taxes are way lower than Norway's. They look to the United States and say: Our taxes are higher than the United States. Now, there maybe some reasons for that. I mean, we do lose people to the United States who want to go there and pay less tax. We do lose some doctors for that reason. There is bit of brain drain, Mr. Speaker, but we are trying to create a more egalitarian society here in Canada and here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to make sure that our taxation policies affect that. I, for one, have no objection to paying income tax if I have a decent income, because that is what makes our society more fair, more reasonable, and more equitable.

As has been said before, the Opposition Finance critic, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has said, the money that people who have a low income make is spent in the economy right away and is used to buy goods and services to make life better for individuals, but also it is spent in the economy.

I do want to say a few words about the raising of revenue through the school tax. The school tax has been abolished. The school tax was abolished thirteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, and this government is still making revenue from school tax; not just arrears, but interest at 1.2 per cent per month compounded monthly since November 1, 1992. Each and every month they are adding interest, upon interest, upon interest, upon interest, multiplied by 160 times. This government is still making revenue on tax that was abolished thirteen years ago. I think something should be done about that. The government should not be collecting that. Instead of this Minister of Finance going out and hiring eight new tax collectors to go after this money, they should be telling people that, we want your tax, we are not after your compound, compound, compound interest, we want you to pay your tax and we will give you an amnesty on the interest if you are able to pay up within a certain period of time. That, Mr. Speaker, was done, that was done back in 1992, but obviously the 27,000 people that the minister is now chasing after either were not aware of that, did not know about it, did not have access to it. We are finding people from all over the country, who have not lived in the Province for ten years, being chased after by this government looking for interest, looking for tax and looking for interest.

There was one fellow, he was on the Open Line last week, and I mentioned him the other day, who had a big racket with the Finance Department officials after he got notification of a tax. He said: I did not even live in the Province at the time. I had all sorts of arguments with the minister and with the department, and eventually they agreed. Oh, no he did not owe all this tax that they had claimed initially. He only owed $2 in tax. Guess how much they wanted? They did not want $2, they wanted $86. The wanted $86 because $84 of that $86 dollars was interest on the $2 going back to 1992. If you think that is conscionable, then I don't. I think that is something that this government, that no government, should be doing to taxpayers. This is somebody who has not lived in the Province for many, many years.

I have lots of examples of people calling me who say: Did not even know about this tax. Happy to pay it. Happy to pay the tax. I owed $300 from 1991, 1992 and 1990, I did not know anything about it. I haven't received any notification until about a month ago. Let me pay the $300 that I owe. Happy to pay the $300 that I owe. The minister does not want $300. The minister took $1,800 from an income tax rebate, took that money and will not give it back. I do not know why this minister wants to keep on doing that. I know he is hard-nosed fella. I know, every now and then he is accused of being the man with the figures. I see him over there now with his pen. He looks like Ebenezer - not Ebenezer Scrooge but Bob Cratchit - there with his books. He is like Bob Cratchit there writing down his lines, writing down his accounts.

I ask him, Mr. Speaker, to take on the persona of Ebenezer Scrooge after he had the trips, after he visited the Ghost of Christmas Past and the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Future. Take on the persona of Ebenezer in the morning: What day is it? What day is it? What day is it, boy? I would ask him to go through a little bit of a personality switch for long enough to forgive that onerous, outrageous interest rate that is being charged. Imagine! Imagine somebody owing $2 in tax and the minister collecting $86 because it is $1.2 per cent per month for 160 months in interest owed on that. I want all of it. I want all of it. That is what he is saying. Now, maybe he does not know about this case. Maybe it is not him personally but it is his policy that is doing that. I urge him to take on the mantel of Ebenezer Scrooge in the morning after he has wizened up, after his heart has been softened by what he is seeing this is doing to people.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We enjoyed the presentation by the hon. member, but his time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Finance, if he speaks now he will close debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that enlightening rendition of Christmastime, I guess, he is a little bit mixed up in the seasons. He stood up and spoke about a bill on income tax and talked about lotteries and then he stood up and - no, on tobacco tax he talked about lotteries. Now, he has one on income tax and he talked about tobacco. He is a little off key here today. I know that, so I can see why he is talking about Christmas here in May. Hopefully, he will get straightened out before the night is out because we are going to be here for a long time.

With that, I will move second reading of the bill.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 8)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I think there is general agreement that we are moving this piece of legislation forward and pass third reading. So, I wonder, would it be appropriate - I am asking some direction, I guess - by leave, to move both Committee stage and third reading at this time, by leave of the House. Would that be an appropriate request, I wonder?

MR. SPEAKER: The House rules would indicate that you must have leave to go more than two stages. I do believe that leave has been granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, then I would move that the bill we are talking about, Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Chair understand, we are not going to do committee?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked just a moment ago, would it be appropriate by leave, or would you prefer that we move into Committee, do it quickly and then move out. I will do that.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. That way then it is very clear in terms of the process.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would prefer if we did follow the process. The Chair had no control over the length of the debate, but it would be better if we did follow the appropriate process.

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 Bill 8.

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 the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 8)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 20.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 20 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 20 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 20 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 8 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 8 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I appreciate the co-operation of my colleagues in the House on this matter.

I do now move that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, 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 Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read 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 Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 8)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act and Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act and Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." ( Bill 9)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of bringing this bill in is to allow people who do not have reciprocal transfer agreements for pension purposes to be able to avail of that. People sometimes work in other areas or other provinces and they want to work for government or they want to transfer from it, they do not have that option. By doing that, if there is a reciprocal transfer agreement in place that already makes provision for that in areas where there is not, this will now make provision.

One of the advantages of this is that somebody may not want to come to work for government, could be a very qualified person as an example, but because of the pension arrangements do not want to forgo areas where they worked a good part of their lives and obviously cannot transfer a pension. It could happen if anybody wanted to take on other employment, it is that opportunity also. One thing on the plan, so it does not compromise the values of those plans in anyway, it was done on an actuarial basis. If you worked at another employer and wanted to come to government for example, an amount of money that you wanted to - the equivalent transfer did not equate to the same number of years. Let's say with ten years there and you could not get ten, you only got nine. You have the option to just take the nine years or to pay the amount to get you to ten years and pay that extra amount that it will cost, that actuarial cost. So, we are not burdening the plan as it is in anyway, other than what currently exists.

This will apply in this area, Mr Speaker, to Public Service Pensions Plan, members of the PSPP, Teachers' Pension Plan, the TPP we will call it, and the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan. So, these changes will enact that to give that flexibility and that opportunity in each of these areas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and respond to Bill 9 as introduced by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

I am interested if the Minister of Finance could supply this House with a list of reciprocal agreements that are currently in place with different employers throughout the country. I just wonder when that list was last updated? It was probably updated, I guess, with the last request that you had that was not on the list. It would be of interest I am sure to those out there who are considering employment with the public service and are now into a pension plan, or a previous pension plan, that was not considered by our provincial government to be transferrable. I know I have had inquiries myself in the past two years from different individuals who are currently outside our Province. Maybe it is a spouse who would like to work for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in one of the professions, whether it be nursing or teaching, or the RNC, and currently they may be limited to not being able to transfer a former pension.

I would be interested to see if some of these changes might include probably the inquiries that I have already received. I think it would be beneficial if the Minister of Finance would present a list of reciprocal agreements currently on file with the Pensions Division of the Department of Finance, because I am sure there are people watching today who would be interested in that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will address that when I close debate on second reading.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I am just hearing now that the Minister of Finance will address that very question when he closes debate.

The pensions that this bill refers to are: the Public Service Pension Plan. Currently, all members of the Public Service Pension Plan in our Province pay a contribution of 8.6 per cent of pensionable salary. A pension benefit is available based on the number of years of pensionable service times 2 per cent of the employee's best five years average salary. Of course, that is reduced by a formulated amount representing Canada pension benefits for each year since 1967. That is when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced in this country.

Then there is the Teachers' Pension Plan. Many people refer to the Teachers' Pension Plan as the Cadillac of pension plans. Teachers have a provision that their Canada Pension Plan will not be adjusted once they reach sixty-five, but that will only include teachers who have been pensioners, who retired after August, 1998. Those are the ones that the reduction applies to; other teachers it will not apply to. Teachers contribute 9.35 per cent of their pensionable salary.

Then there is the Uniformed Services Pension Plan. Employees contribute 8.5 per cent of pensionable salary. Of course, everybody is always interested in the Members of the House of Assembly, their pension. We contribute 9 per cent of our pensionable salary, but once we received Canada Pension, by age sixty-five, that is adjusted backwards. We do not have the Cadillac, where it is not touched once you become eligible for what we consider to be old age pension. There would be an adjustment made in our current pension to reflect that. We do not have that particular plan.

Of course, the pension plan has always been a source of what we owe as a provincial debt in this Province. Since we have had the accrual method of accounting brought in to this Province for budget purposes, it is always taken into account now, so the $11 billion - it sounds like such a large amount of money, and it is, $11 billion - for our current debt, our provincial debt, $4 billion of that is outstanding for unfunded pension liability, which means that employees have paid into their pension and, in previous years, both the Liberal and Tory governments have seen fit to use part of that pension fund for hospitals and roads, but it was under the direction of former Premier Brian Tobin - and I have to give him credit for that - he decided to take a stand, and I think it is ever since 1997 that there has been an enormous amount going into pension unfunded liability over and above the requirement of this government to match employees' contributions. In fact, I think it is something in the area of about $140 million extra per year to make those pension plans whole. It is very concerning at this point in the pension plan, because most of the employees in our public service are at an average age of forty-seven years, and forty-seven years brings them about ten years from retirement. So, there is going to be an enormous demand on pension funds in years to come and that is the reason why a giant effort was made in 1997 and every year since to pay over and above the matching part of employees' contributions to try to make that fund whole.

This particular bill is about, actually, people being able to transfer their pensions prior to coming to work with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. With this age of transience, I guess, most people have more than one job in their lifetime. A lot of people probably might have two or three jobs, or more than that, and they may move from province to province. Pensions do not become a concern to some people until they hit age forty and that is when everything hits home and they realize they have to consider the future and what the pension fund will bring to them.

That is when they look at the fact that, I did work somewhere before, I wonder would this new employer consider that contribution I made to that particular pension fund, and would they combine it with my new employment. For people wanting to work with our public service, that is a huge consideration, because if we have a reciprocal agreement in place, that makes the decision so much easier for someone who has been working in another province and they have funds paid into a pension plan. They do not want to leave that employment because they are afraid they will not get full credit for their pension fund. Having an adjustment to these four plans would be an attraction for some hard-to-fill positions.

I know a couple of years ago we were having great difficultly in finding oncologists to work at the Bliss Murphy Cancer Center. From time to time, hard-to-fill positions cause this government and this public service to go outside our Province and try to attract employees from all over the country. This particular change to Bill 9 will accommodate that change, but it will be interesting to see how far the reciprocal agreements have gone.

I would say to anyone out there who is contemplating work with this particular government, although there has not been much work available lately, it has been more cutting jobs than hiring for jobs, but in the event that there is an opportunity for a career in the public service, and you are not sure if your pension can be combined with the current pension, I would suggest that you get in touch with Pensions Division of the Department of Finance.

One thing I was really disappointed in: This year I learned, through the Estimates Committee, that the plan that we had started as the former Administration, the Graduate Recruitment Program, where we agreed to hire fifteen young graduates from post-secondary education in our Province, hire them into our public service and groom them, groom them for deputy ministers and executive roles in years to come - because we have to look at the fact that our population is aging within the public service and we do not have a succession plan to address these executive positions. We expect there is going to be a mass exodus over the next ten years.

That was a great opportunity to bring in fifteen young people with great credentials. I know, when I was President of Treasury Board, we used to receive at least 500 applications a year from young people wanting to get into our public service, become a part of government, and develop their career within the public service.

I learned, through the Estimates Committee just a couple of weeks ago, that, that plan is banished. It is finished. That plan cost about $900,000 a year and it had great potential for our young people. Now what has happened, that plan has gone by this government and they have opened up any new job opportunities to whosoever well may come, currently within the public service or the general public. I think it does a lot for young people to give them that opportunity to make a career in government. I would be the first to say that government has made a bad move in this direction.

The pension plan, Bill 9, is an opportunity for us to attract new people.

The time is flying for our supper break and we will return at 7:00 p.m., and I will conclude by saying that I agree with all aspects of this current bill.

Thank you.

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

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

I know we are operating under motions not to close the House at 5:30 p.m. and not again at 10:00, but I believe by agreement we are going to recess for a supper break and return at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, this House will recess until 7:00 p.m. this evening.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Just before we left - I am not sure - did the member opposite from Grand Falls-Buchans finish her commentary or did she adjourn?

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You had concluded your commentary.

Mr. Speaker, then I know it is the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, so we are back to the bill that we were debating just before the House recessed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to continue debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, all of you, for your overwhelming response to my desire to speak.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we were discussing was An Act To Amend The Pensions Act. The debate that we have had so far basically is suggesting that this legislation provides for the portability of pensions that are not covered by the Portability of Pensions Act, and allows people coming into the public service to bring their pension with them.

I think that is a very good idea. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is a positive step. I went and checked the Portability of Pensions Act because they are kind of excluded from this. I was pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, but I confirmed it by looking at it, that the Portability of Pensions Act really only talks about government pensions. It deals with existing pensions under the Memorial University Pensions Act, the Public Service Pensions Act, the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, the Civil Service Act, the other older education acts. It really is dealing only with government pensions. What this shows, Mr. Speaker, is that we really do not have general legislation that ensures the portability of pensions generally in our Province.

I know this act is designed to provide a particular benefit to people coming into the public service, whether it be under the Public Service Pensions Act or under the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, to be able to come to this Province and take their previous pension with them. I am assuming the reason the Uniformed Services Pensions Act is included is because we may have someone like the Chief of Police come from another jurisdiction, who might want to bring a pension with them, although I think we have plenty of police officers in this Province who could quite adequately serve as Chief of Police.

I can understand wanting to have flexibility, particularly at the senior levels of the public service, when one is recruiting. It could be individuals who left the Province many years ago, provided good service elsewhere, would like to come back here, but pension considerations are a factor when considering whether someone wants to return to this Province or make any move after a number of years of service elsewhere.

It is also, Mr. Speaker, I think, something that should be part of the general law. We do have a Pensions Benefits Act in this Province which provides for the regulation of pensions in the private sector and ensures that they are under the supervision of the Superintendent of Insurance, the Superintendent of Pensions; it covers for both positions. There is a high level of regulation, but there is not any provision that ensures that, in terms of private pension plans, one can take that pension benefit with them and bring it to another plan. There is no provision that requires another plan to accept that money.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we ought to be moving on a societal level to a more general law that makes sure that anybody who is in the working world, who has access to a pension, does not have to deal with the intricacies, the perhaps idiosyncrasies or the peculiarities of a particular pension when moving from one job to another.

It has been said before. I believe the Official Opposition critic, the Finance critic, talked about the fact that in these days people do not go to a job and stay for life, sometimes out of choice, or sometimes, unfortunately, like the people in Grand Falls today or yesterday who were laid off. They may have some pension entitlements, Mr. Speaker, but they do not have any choice as to whether they leave that job and when they go to another job to be able to bring that pension with them. If they are able to take another job in the private sector that has a pension plan, is it of any value to them if they come in late and they only get a few years of pensionable service?

Mr. Speaker, we have to go beyond this type of legislation, which is great for public servants, great for people in the public sector, but that is only a very small portion of the people in our society, and we do have an obligation to start looking at how we can make the private pension scheme - we understand that they are all different. Some of them are national pensions, some of them are national companies that have pensions in each province, but there should be some flexibility inherent in that system and I would want to see some recognition of that, Mr. Speaker, as we move to recognize the desire and the need for people to be able to move around in different jobs, whether by necessity or by choice. Often, Mr. Speaker, when someone is forced to do it, that is all the more reason why they should have some flexibility in being able to take their pension with them and join it with another pension plan and have that protected.

We have even seen, Mr. Speaker, at the national level, again as a result of the deal made by the NDP with the Government of Canada, some protection for pensions in the private sector which are not sufficiently protected in terms of bankruptcy, because there have been a number of circumstances where unfunded pension liability in the private sector has led to people losing their pensions despite many years of service and even contribution to those pensions. So we have seen a $100 million fund set up as an initial fund to provide for a fund to protect the pensions in the case of insolvencies and bankruptcies in the private sector. That is something that, as our society gets more sophisticated, as we recognize the major shifts that can happen in this country when government allows airlines to go bankrupt, for example, when deregulation is taking place, when governments are often forced to see major restructuring go on in significant industries like steel and automobile industries, that we may well see more disruption of that kind that we have seen happening in our own Province - in Grand Falls, with layoffs of people with fifteen, sixteen, eighteen years of service, obviously have some pension rights, should be able to take those pension rights with them. Unfortunately, there is no legislation that ensures that can happen and that those individuals can take that to a new pension such as is being offered here now to people who are entering the public service.

I support the legislation, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important legislation, that we do these things, but we should try and broaden it to the private sector as well.

I will say one more thing, Mr. Speaker, about pensions. We are talking here about the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, the Public Service Pensions Act and the Teachers' Pensions Act - the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association Pensions Act. These are very important pension funds in the Province. As the minister said, this particular legislation does not place any additional burden on those funds.

I want to just say one thing to members here and to those who may be watching this tomorrow night when it is broadcast, because we are not live. Maybe we are on satellite, but it is tomorrow night's satellite. It is not tonight's satellite, so it is a delayed broadcast. It is not like the fifteen second delay that they used to have on Bill Rowe's show on VOCM. It is a twenty-four hour delay. If you say anything really bad, you can censor it and, instead of withdrawing the remark, you can actually excise it from Hansard. I do not intend to say anything unparliamentary, but I will say that when this government talks about the unfunded pension liability, they say it all as if it is one big problem, that it is one big problem that we all have to be worried about because somehow or other the government hasn't looked after people's pensions.

Well, there is a big difference in the pension plans, and I think it is important to know that the Public Service Pension Plan, for example, which covers most of the public sector workers, most of the civil servants who work directly for the government, the Public Service Pension Plan is as a result of changes made in 2001, changes that were negotiated by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees. Those changes that were negotiated by NAPE and CUPE in 2001 provided for a funding of that unfunded liability over a period of time. So we have one of the problems fixed, almost. There is a small tweaking that has to happen. There has to be an additional top-up to the annual contribution by government that matches the increase in the overall salary component. If the salary budget of the public service increases by 2 per cent, then that contribution ought to increase by 2 per cent. If that is done, the Public Service Pension Plan is actually in good shape. Anybody who looks at our books might say, yes, there is unfunded liability there but there is a plan in place to address that over time and we are happy -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, that is what I am saying to the Minister of Finance. It is not done properly. There has to be a certain amount of tweaking done to the Public Service Pension Plan to make it work, but what was accomplished in 2001 went a very long way to making that happen by making annual contributions by government to the Public Service Pension Plan. The amount of funding is increasing on an annual basis to the point that we are up to 48 per cent, 49 per cent, maybe 50 per cent now. The last time I looked at the Pooled Pension Fund report, I think the last time they did a study was 2003 or something. By then, it was up to around 48 per cent and increasing on an annual basis.

So, you cannot just talk about the pensions as if they were one particular item. The individual pensions and the unfunded liability in each pension is a problem each unto its own. We do have a significant and astounding unfunded liability in the Teachers' Pension Fund. I think anybody who knows anything about the Newfoundland and Labrador Government's finances will know that is the case. It is an astounding number, Mr. Speaker, and it has to be addressed, but I have yet to hear, other than talk about doom and gloom and all the billions of dollars that we own, I have yet to hear a plan from the Minister of Finance as to how they plan to address the Teachers' Pension Fund and the unfunded pension liability. Not a word. Not one single word have I heard from this Minister of Finance in the last two years. He wants to talk about doom and gloom. We owe all this money and we have to have this kind of hardship and that kind of hardship to deal with it, but not one iota of a plan as to how to fix that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) that is in the agreement.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it may be in their agreement, Mr. Speaker, but if this government does not pony up any money there is not going to be any solution to the problem. There may be a solution that can come through collective bargaining, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister will get a chance to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: He will enlighten us all now when he gets a chance to speak.

The fact of the matter is that we have an extremely significant unfunded pension liability in the order of some $1.6 billion is it, or $1.4 billion? Some huge - $1.8 billion, is it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I wish that is all it was.

MR. HARRIS: I am talking about the Teachers' Pension Fund, now.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am not talking about all of them, just for the teachers' fund.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) $2 billion.

MR. HARRIS: Up over $2 billion just for the Teachers' Pension Fund, so I would like to know what kind of plan this minister has to deal with that, whether he is going to get co-operation from the NLTA to deal with it. We have not heard anything about it, other than this is a justification for a lot of nasty business on the part of the government, because I do know, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of work was done with the Public Service Pension Plan as a result of the assistance of CUPE and NAPE and their actuaries who they brought to the table who helped the government figure out how to deal with it over a long period time, over a twenty or thirty-five year period, because these are long-term problems. They are not tomorrow's problems, Mr. Speaker, but if you do not make plans today to solve them you are not going to solve them.

This same thing happened in Ontario in the early 1990s; there was a very significant unfunded pension liability in Ontario. I think the numbers were into the twenty and thirty billion dollars, some huge amount of money. Obviously they are a bigger entity, and a plan was put in place to solve that problem over a period of thirty-five years by making contributions. Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem was solved in eight years, not thirty-five years, because of the performance of the stock market in the 1990s, and the Ontario pension funds were able to see their problem resolved in fairly short order.

Once a plan is in place, Mr. Speaker, if the plan is adequate, if the numbers are adequate, if the commitment is there, then you will find that the bond rating agencies, the lenders to the Province, say: We understand that this debt is there, we understand there are obligations there, but we are aware of the plan that is made to address that, and we see that being carried out.

Once we do that, Mr. Speaker, the numbers cannot be used as part of scare tactics of government to try and frighten people into thinking that they cannot have school textbooks to go to school, without paying for them, or they cannot have materials at school without the government, school boards, dunning people for school. They can send their children to school knowing they are going to get a school meal; the basics, Mr. Speaker, the very basics that many children do not have in this Province. We do not need to have scare tactics from government to frighten the public into thinking that they are not entitled to those basic necessities.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope the minister does address that when he speaks up, because we know that is a problem. We do not need to be told constantly that we have an unfunded pension liability problem. We need to be told that this government is looking at how to address it, and has some ideas as to how to do it. I hope he will enlighten us on that.

I support the legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is a good step forward. It provides for more options for people coming into the public sector to take advantage, or take their pension with them. I hope that the minister and his officials are also looking at ways of ensuring that we have a high degree of portability of pensions, not just in the public sector but also in the private sector as well because we do have the Pension Benefits Act. We had a new act a few years ago, but that issue was not addressed. I would like to see ways that, within the private sector, when often people are forced to go from one job to another, with some significant pension credits, that they do not lose them, that they are able to bring them to another pension plan and have them be included as part of that new pension plan as well. I hope the minister has some ideas of moving forward in that area as well.

That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and hope that the minister can address some of them when he concludes debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just very briefly make reference to - it is just a little outside the scope, the unfunded liability aspect of this bill, but I will respond very quickly to his question there.

I think it was in 1998 that an agreement was reached between the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association and government to acknowledge any cost, when the Pooled Pension Plan was set up in 1980. Prior to that, it was indicated by unions and the representatives of the shareholders in that plan, the stakeholders in the plan, that you owed money, you spent it on salaries, roads, bridges and that. It was determined in 1998 that the money that was owed to that plan prior to 1980 was a determined fixed amount of money. It was determined in agreement between the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association and government.

Also, for giving up indexing at that time, there was another agreed amount of money in lieu of giving up that. That total came to $815 million. When government pays their $815 million into the plan, they will fulfill, as an equal contributor, into the Teachers' Pension Plan. That should be fulfilled in about roughly $76 million a year over the next four, and partially into the fifth year, which means all aspects of government, as an equal contributor to that plan, will have been fulfilled. In spite of that, we will be up over $2 billion short. Well, who pays that? Should it be paid equally between teachers and government? That is an area I am not going to go into now, for the simple reason it is a part of their collective agreement - teachers' pensions is a part of the collective agreement - and it is not the place, in the Legislature, to discuss that, but that is an aspect. I wanted to clarify that point for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

He did make reference, I think, to portability. I took a couple of notes as I heard him speak. The portability aspect applies to our own umbrella plans, like the Teachers' Pension Plan, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, the Public Service Pension Plan, Memorial University, those in that umbrella -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct, yes. That is portability among those groups. Now, there are reciprocal agreements reached with others in which we can have that transfer. For example, most other provinces and the federal government. We have one with Aliant, I think. Yes, Aliant. Those are areas where we have reciprocal agreements that can occur right now. Ones that do not have reciprocal agreements - I will just use some examples. I know a case that came across my desk - I will not name the university - one of the universities, for example, outside the Province. Someone had service here and wanted to get those few years and could not do it. This will allow that person now to use his years at university, whether it is the University of Toronto or Winnipeg or Windsor, wherever it is. This will allow that avenue provided they are into plans that have a defined pension plan on a similar scale as ours. It has to be a defined pension plan with credible deductions, a similar type of plan. This will allow for people to do that.

Right now, the head organizations in Saskatchewan, for example, some of them do not have reciprocal agreements. For example, teacher plans in other provinces do not have agreements like here in our Province, reciprocal agreements. Areas like this, Mr. Speaker, will allow these areas to occur now, where they are not members of our own plan, our own umbrella plans here, as I mentioned, the portability ones, or are not under reciprocal agreements that have been reached with these people. Anyone outside of these - it could be out in private business, for example. Aliant has a reciprocal agreement. If FPI had an agreement that was similar and they wanted to have a transfer, or whatever business out around the Province's surrounding area that wanted to fit into this category, that have similar plans, they can transfer that amount of money. If there is a shortfall in that, for example, you could get credit for that number of years, you could top it up and so on, in those areas.

I made reference to that in the opening, and I think I have probably answered those particular points. With that, I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 9)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 9)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act and Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

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 this bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3.

Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 9 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 9 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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 and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 9 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 have directed him to report Bill 9 passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave?

The Chair has asked if leave has been granted to move to the third stage of the reading of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

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 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (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 Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised, I do believe, by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I just seek some clarification - the Table Officer brought it to my attention - concerning the matter of a substantive motion which I put before the House this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 37, dealing with the resolution saying: Be It Resolved that this House of Assembly calls on the Speaker to operate within the confines of the Standing Orders and to convene the Standing Orders Committee when otherwise necessary.

It has been brought to my attention that it might be contrary to the rules. The suggestion was that there is already a private member's motion on the Order Paper from myself, as the Member for Burgeo-LaPoile, and that the substantive motion I made today, pursuant to Standing Order 37, might, in essence, mean that I would have two motions on the Paper and therefore that would be contrary to Standing Order 64(3) which says that you cannot have two motions on the Order Paper.

We have had some discussions about the issue, and it is my view of the reading of the Orders that section 64(3) which deals with two orders on the Order Paper is specifically in our rules under the section, Private Member's Motions, whereas the substantive motion that I made today was under section 37, not under the Private Member's Motion. It is my view, that I do not, in effect, have two motions on the Order Paper so as to be in contravention of Standing Order 64(3). It has been brought to my attention, and there is a good argument, of course, as well, that all private member's motions are substantive motions, and therefore, I am indeed in violation of Standing Order 64(3), to which I countered, that because all private member's motions are substantive motions, the converse is not necessarily true, that all substantive motions are necessarily private member's motions.

The Private Member's Motion section deals with members of this House who want to move a resolution and use their privilege, as a member of this House, to put forward a private member's motion. The very resolution, and it speaks for itself, it is obvious from its reading that this is not just a resolution on behalf of this particular private member. It is a substantive issue which we, on this side of the House at least, would like to have heard and dealt with by the House. It happened to be proposed by myself, as the Opposition House Leader, who we felt to be the most appropriate person to move it forward as a substantive motion, and it was seconded, as required under Standing Order 37, by another member who happened to be the Member for Exploits, the Leader of the Opposition. It was in writing as required by Standing Order 37.

I just want assurance here. We would not want to find out, two weeks hence, that someone would suggest we are in contravention of Standing Order 42 which talks about being contrary to the rules of the House.

I understand that there are two ways to rectify the situation. If everybody is in favour that my interpretation is correct, that they are, in fact, two different types of motions, one being a private member's motion which is okay, and the other one that I have moved today being a substantive motion under Standing Order 37, there is no contravention. When the day comes, the Monday preceding the Wednesday of two weeks hence, if we wish to proceed with that on our Private Members' Day, I would simply stand on that Monday, give notice and we would proceed on Wednesday, two weeks hence, to discuss the motion which I moved today under Standing Order 37.

I just want some clarification here, because there is no other mechanism, as we have determined. There is no mechanism under the Standing Orders by which a substantive motion that is not necessarily a private member's motion could find its way before the House, unless we did it on a Private Members' Day. The Private Members' Day is when we do it, but it is not necessarily a private member's motion.

I would just like some clarification, that we are having no conflict here, we are not in contravention of Standing Order 64.(3), and that we will be legitimately able to proceed two weeks hence, provided we give the notice on the Monday preceding of course, with the motion that we moved today.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Opposition House Leader has raised a valid point, that he may have talked about some hole, I guess, in the Standing Orders, not necessarily by commission but by omission. I was agreeing with him up until a point, when he said he wished to discuss it on a Private Members' Day. In other words, the point that he has made is that he has two motions. This would be your second motion? You have two motions now. If we include this one, would you have two private member's motions standing in your name? Is that what you have indicated?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say hypothetically then. I'm not trying to box you in. Hypothetically speaking, if this were ruled to be a private member's motion then you would have two motions standing in your name.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the easiest things to do really, without getting you to rule and points of order and all that sort of stuff, I think we should refer to the Standing Orders Committee because that is a committee ongoing in terms of the point that you have raised with respect to maybe an omission in the Standing Orders that does not deal with a situation.

May I just make a suggestion for the sake of moving it forward? Would the member consider removing one of the private member's resolutions that he has on the Order Paper? We would certainly give leave to do that, and he can then choose which one he would like to bring forward. That would end it right off the bat, or you can put it in somebody else's name.

If you wanted to remove the previous private member's motion that you had, or previous motion, give the opportunity for a Standing Orders Committee that is ongoing when the House closes to conclude our work, have a look at this, then we can move on. Then there would not be an issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Opposition House Leader might defer to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter is somewhat complex, because it is not a normal private member's motion in the context of our House. We have already discussed in the Standing Orders Committee some possible modifications to the whole private member's regime, if you want to call it that. Perhaps it is something that, rather than having Your Honour go through the trouble of making a ruling and doing extensive research around the world, as you are wont to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: - we would save you that trouble, Your Honour, and refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee so that we could perhaps deal with it there. Might I suggest that to you?

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I have made my point of what we hope to accomplish here. We had, of course, seen that there were different options as to how we might proceed and had hoped that government would, of course, consent to us proceeding in that manner. I am glad to see that the Government House Leader is being so magnanimous, as he usually is. We will certainly make our decision now in due course as to which one we will proceed with on that day.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that later in the day, hopefully later in the evening, the hon. the Opposition House Leader will advise the Table as to which motion will be placed tomorrow. When we do up the orders for tomorrow, we need to know which one to print in the procedures for tomorrow. Perhaps it would help if we could know that so the Table officers would be able to put into print the proper motion as per the member's direction.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act. (Bill 6)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act." (Bill 6)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, I rise tabling legislation to wind up the Literacy Development Council, a council that became a creature of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, back in 1994. It was the Literacy Development Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the LDC as I will refer to it. It was created as an arm's-length organization to improve the co-ordination amongst the literacy programming in the Province, and also to raise funds for literacy initiatives.

That was in 1994, and it was in response to a need at that particular time that the previous Administration saw to further the cause of literacy throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It started off as a good initiative to, I guess, put together a Literacy Development Council that would work with all partners in literacy to bring about, again, positive changes and to serve the needs of the learners in Newfoundland and Labrador to allow them to continue on their journey of life-long learning.

That was in 1994, and through the 1990s some very good initiatives were brought forth from the aspect of this council's activities, and these activities certainly did push forth, I guess, the literacy in Newfoundland and in Labrador; however, Mr. Speaker, there were some difficulties that arose as time progressed. These difficulties became apparent as the Literacy Development Council gradually came to an understanding that the responsibilities that were placed upon them perhaps were not responsibilities that they could fulfill with regard to raising of the funds, but in particular with the development of policies and procedures with regard to literacy, that they did not have the research capacity to do so. They did not have the financial resources nor the human resources to carry out some of the initiatives that were put upon their plate. One, in particular, was the pilot project of late for the Adult Basic Education Level 1. This pilot project was taken on initially by the Literacy Development Council but, again, as I pointed out, the difficulty in furthering that and monitoring it became a little bit difficult for the Literacy Development Council and that responsibility they passed back to the government and the Department of Education, in particular the Literacy Branch of that department.

Other difficulties arose, and I do not want to get too deep into the history, Mr. Speaker. Of course, members on either side, if they want clarification, I certainly would. The previous Administration, in the fall of 2002, commissioned a report, a copy of which I have here. Of course, if members on either side do not have copies, I will make every opportunity to provide them. It was an evaluation of the Literacy Development Council of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was commissioned in the fall of 2002, and the report was submitted to the previous Administration in March of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, if I might just read some excerpts from the executive summary that will give the hon. members on both sides some sort of an overview of what the purpose of the evaluation was, and certainly the recommendations that came out of that evaluation and henceforth the actions that have been taken since that time. The report certainly was carried out by, I suppose it was put out for a Request for Proposals, an RFP, and it was taken up by the Institute for the Advancement of Public Policy Inc. That was in October, 2002. The report was presented in March of 2003. It just goes on to talk a little bit about the history, which I have already given.

It says, Mr. Speaker, "The thrust of the evaluation is to determine whether, given the current demands and challenges in the field of literacy in the Province, changes are required to the roles, responsibilities and structure of the LDC. Additional elements of the evaluation have been to analyze the working relationship between the Literacy Branch and the LDC as well as to assess the appropriate role of the LDC in the implementation of the ABE Level 1 pilot project."

"The consultant..." - the Institute for the Advancement of Public Policy - "...has relied extensively on the data provided by the Literacy Branch and the LDC in the conduct of the evaluation. Key informant interviews,..." - the consultation process - "...a survey of community-based literacy agency representatives and other knowledgeable persons, and further consultations with community stakeholders have assisted the consultant to round-out the collection of data on which the findings, options and recommendations are based."

In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, "Overall, the consultant has observed a high level of consensus in the need for change in the future role of the LDC and in the structure of the Council. At this point in its evolution, the LDC will need to focus more on advocacy and providing advice to governments and other sectors on literacy matters. The key challenge of the Provincial Government will be to devise the most appropriate organizational mechanism to support this change. Two options are presented: (i) a government-appointed council, or (ii) a community-based provincial network of literary service providers and other literacy stakeholders. Acceptance of these options may require either a major revision of the current LDC legislation or the repeal of the current LDC legislation." - so, a revision or repeal.

Mr. Speaker, when this report was brought to the previous Administration in March, 2003, I assume that there were provisions made then to carry out the recommendations of this particular report. Of course, as we know, in the fall of 2003 there was a change in government. With that change in government then came the onus of the new government to take that evaluation report and to very quickly move in the direction of the recommendations. Of course, this was not done totally unilaterally because the LDC, the Literacy Development Council, was indeed a working body and the government then took it upon themselves to action the report in consultation with not only the Literacy Development Council but the literacy community in general.

These consultations began, and a plan of action was mapped out with the full co-operation of the Literacy Development Council, its President, Mr. Paul Lahey, and its executive members. I guess a transition strategy was put in place and an agreement made that the Literacy Development Council would continue its operations until December 31, 2004, and there would be a transition group who would take over the duties of the Literacy Development Council, and also not only take over some of the duties but also to plot out the path of putting together a group, some sort of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: I would certainly like to inform the members of what the bill is all about so that they can certainly vote one way or the other on it. I will continue on, even though there is an interruption from one of the hon. members on the other side. When I am finished, you are quite welcome to rise.

The council, in December of 2004, that particular council, had run its course and an agreement was made by all for the Literacy Development Council to clue up its operations. In cluing up its operations, there was indeed an agreement amongst all members of the literacy community to cease the operations of it, to have the act repealed, but also to put in place a transition that would bring about a change to the literacy community and to put forth an organization that would move forth more in an advisory manner than anything else.

This particular group, I would say, Mr. Speaker, was the Literacy Network Ad-hoc Group, or LNAG. This group now is doing its work in preparing the literacy community to come together and to come to some agreement as to where we need to go with regard to the literacy development in Newfoundland and Labrador, so Bill 6 is certainly after the fact. The operations of the Literacy Development Council have ceased as of December 31, 2004. We are working now towards bringing an end to the Literacy Development Council, and moving on in a very positive light.

I put this bill before the hon. members and ask them to ratify it again to move forward on this particular file.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what the members had for supper, but they are certainly in a boisterous mood tonight. I don't think it was crab.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Minister of Education's bill, Bill 6. This is a bit puzzling, this bill. I understand completely how the Literacy Council of Newfoundland and Labrador was formed in 1994. They had done good, effective work right up until 2002 when a review took place and there was a direction set by a consultant as to where they should go in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: However, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen, or I have not heard the Minister of Education tell us what the government's plans are to replace the Literacy Development Council of Newfoundland and Labrador. He talks about a transition group but he does not give any direction as to the future of literacy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Originally, when this literacy council was formed, the idea behind it was that people would donate to a private agency where they would not donate to, say, the Department of Education, whereby this particular group comes under literacy. The legislation was originally put into place so that they would be able to attract charitable donations for literacy in our Province.

I understand, as the evolution of this particular council, that it was determined in 2002 that neither did they have the financial assistance nor did they have the human resources to carry out the mandate that was becoming more expanded year by year, more demands being made on this particular literacy council. When you consider, I guess, the fact that literacy plays a great part in this Province, and although we have been working hard at literacy improvement, over the years we still have not made the gains that we should make.

Even in this Province today, there is almost a 40 per cent literacy rate, which is not a statistic that we should be very proud of. In fact, I have been to many literacy events since becoming elected as the MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans and I had occasion, actually, to be also present while the current Minister of Education went to Grand Falls-Windsor for an annual event for the Exploits chapter. During that particular evening - I think the Minister of Education would agree - there are many highlights of that evening where people who had actually learned how to read, became proficient in reading, were very glad to be part of that audience, and were recognized by their peers and those in the audience who came to recognize them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: It was so satisfying to see volunteers in that particular audience recognized for the good work and for the time they freely give.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much conversation across the floor, and sometimes from far distances, that makes it very difficult for the Chair and others to be able to hear what the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is saying in her presentation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. member and asks all other hon. members to give her the courtesy of speaking in silence.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection here tonight. That is wonderful.

Anyway, as I was saying, it is very rewarding to actually go to a literacy event. Many are held all throughout our Province, and I am sure that there is not one member standing here who hasn't had the occasion to go to some kind of an annual event whereby volunteers who work with literacy are recognized for their time and involvement. I know several in Grand Falls-Windsor that year after year they volunteer freely for no pay, no recognition, just because they want to help someone else to read and write.

I have several constituents in my district who get by but they cannot read or write, and it is frightening. Lots of times I will get a phone call from a constituent and they will be alarmed at some particular piece of correspondence that they received in the mail. They do not know whether or not they are going to be sued or they are going to have to go to jail. I will oftentimes go to their homes and sit down and read their correspondence and put them at ease by saying like, this is only a bill or this is only a notice or whatever. It is surprising how many ways people will design to get by when they cannot read or write, and they will never let down their guard.

So, the wonderful work that Literacy Development is doing in this Province, I do not know if you can put a financial figure on it. It is also gratifying, I guess, to go to graduations all over this Province. Every year the College of the North Atlantic, as well as private colleges, have a course for ABE. It is wonderful to see people coming forward, in a late stage lots of times. Sometimes people come forward in their twenties, those who have dropped out of school early for various reasons and decide later on to go back to school and complete their education. Then there are those who are in their forties and probably after raising a family, and decide: well, you know, I really did not pay attention in school and maybe this is the time for me. They will decide to go to one of the colleges and complete their high school education.

The College of the North Atlantic, I know that they award scholarships for those who do extremely well. It is so wonderful to see the faces of those graduates who go back to school and get their high school diploma. Most of them go on to post-secondary. It is an area that is very critical in this Province in education. I am concerned because when I look at the Estimates book for Adult Learning and Literacy, I know that $80,000 has been taken out of Grants and Subsidies in this current Budget by this government. So, I do not know where their focus will be. Are they saying to the population out there that their focus is not on adult literacy? Because when you take $80,000 out of a Budget - normally there is about $550,000 poured into adult literacy in this Province. It is done through various government agencies and private institutions but we are seeing tonight that $80,000 has been struck from that particular estimate from that particular Budget.

The Minister of Education has alluded to the fact that since the report came out - I do not know if it was to disband this particular literacy, the Newfoundland and Labrador Literacy Development Council. There were recommendations made by the consultant that it should be either expanded., properly funded or disbanded. I guess this government has decided to repeal this piece of legislation which, in actual fact, disbands the Newfoundland and Labrador Literacy Council of 1994. Now, what will they put in place of this council? That is not known at this point.

The Minister of Education has not said how he plans to replace the Newfoundland and Labrador Literacy Council. There are a couple of options. Number one, government can appoint a council. Now, I am a bit dubious about that, about government appointing a council. Will this be patronage appointments or will it be meaningful appointments who can really add to the cause of literacy in this Province?

There is another option, which is community based appointments. Now, I would rather see that because at least we will get people appointed who will be from all over this Province, and they will not be designated as just part of the urban centres. Because we all know that people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador do not have the same opportunity to attend the College of the North Atlantic or a private college. Most of them will not have the same opportunities. So, if you are going to appoint a community-based board, I would suggest that you look at geography and gender instead of political stripe.

I know that there is a great deal of emphasis placed on literacy in this Province. I think it was Peter Gzowski who made a great contribution nationally by providing a golf tournament every year and the funds raised would go directly to literacy. This is a great gesture, and I am glad to see that, even after his death, it is still followed up.

Now this government, in its current Budget, decided to put $3 million into fine arts and cultural studies. In other words, there was a new program called Cultural Connections. Now, this is amazing how you can put $3 million into Cultural Connections. There is nothing wrong with it. I know the Minister of Tourism is looking at me. We all want to know about Newfoundland and Labrador culture. We all want to know about Newfoundland and Labrador history. However, we do not want to view core curriculum through a TV or computer monitor. I do not want to see students in Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 looking into that computer screen and trying to do a core curriculum in social studies when they should have a teacher in their classroom. They should have a teacher in their classroom instead of having to look into a computer screen.

There is one thing this Tory government did. They said they would put strong emphasis on distance education and, by God, they did it. They said they would put strong emphasis on distance education. Now, if you are going to expect children in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to get their education from a computer screen, that is not what you should be doing. Are you going to expect children in Terra Nova and Charlottetown to get on a bus on an unpaved road and have to drive from Charlottetown and Terra Nova to go to school in Glovertown? Is that what a strong focus on education is all about?

MR. ORAM: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Member for Terra Nova is making a remark that he likes my suit. Well, I am glad. You can wear it after tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: We are talking about a very important subject here tonight. The subject we are talking about is adult literacy, and it is important and it is serious.

We have a government here today that is supposed to be giving priority to health care and education. Yet, we have a government that stands up tonight and says they struck $80,000 from their budget for literacy. They have a transition group that is going to study it some more. I guess you are going to study it until next year so you will not have to fund it. I think that is what they are trying to do. This group disbanded, or was struck, December 2004. A new Budget came down March 21 and $80,000 has been taken out of adult literacy in this current Budget. So, if you study it for all this year you will not have to fund it. Is that the way your government is going to save money? Probably.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Even the minister admits it. He said probably.

What we have to look at now is what is happening here in this Province when it comes to education. What is happening? We have a government that will only be on the job two years in October. Before they celebrate their anniversary on October 22, 2005, they will have two years on the job. They will able to stand up on their anniversary, when they cut their second anniversary cake, and say: Guess what? We took out over 400 teachers out of the classrooms of this Province, and we conned the public by saying we put seventy-five in. It is all about communication. We conned the public. They think we are putting seventy-five in. Guess what? We took over 400 out.

Where did we put that seventy-five in? Where did we put the seventy-five extra teachers? Did you put them in Buchans? Did you put them in Musgrave Harbour? Did you put them in Port Rexton? Did you put them in Charlottetown? Did you put them in Eastport?

MR. JOYCE: Corner Brook (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: There you go!

They did not put them in Lab City. Did they put them on the Coast of Labrador? Did they put them up on the Northern Peninsula? Did they put them down in Bay d'Espoir? Did they put them on the South Coast? Did they put them down in Notre Dame Bay? No.

The Minister of Education walks into Port Rexton, he meets the children with the protest signs, the placards, and do you know what the minister said to the children when he met them with the placards? Why so glum? Why would you expect children to be so glum after you cut the guts out of their school and said, get on a bus, we are going to shut down your school? You had the nerve to ask the children: Why so glum? My goodness!

What are you going to do to the children up in Buchans? We are going to lose one-and-a-half teaching units. You say: What is one-and-a-half teaching units? If you only had eleven to start with and you lost one-and-a-half, you only have nine-and-a-half left, and you have to deal with Special Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I do not think there are going to be any auditions tonight for Canadian Idol, so the Member for Mount Pearl can sit in his seat and he will not have to speak tonight.

Madam Speaker, this bill leaves a lot to be desired. We have a serious literacy problem in this Province. The minister wants to repeal the legislation that governs the current Literacy Development Council, but he has no idea about how he going to replace it and he has cut the funding from the current Budget. That leaves a lot of questions. I hope that the minister, when he gets to his feet, will address these very concerns.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on this legislation, which is designed to repeal the statute for the Literacy Development Council, which has already been disbanded, Madam Speaker. I want to use this opportunity to say a few words about the whole issue of literacy programs in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do know, Madam Speaker, that the Department of Education itself, the division of adult learning and literacy, has taken over the Council's role in dispersing funds for programs and grants. Madam Speaker, the concern that I have in not, at this point, the structure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Madam Speaker, can I ask that we have some silence. I cannot quite hear myself speak. I do not know if hon. members can hear me.

We understand that the role the council played in dispersing grants has been taken over by the Department of Education directly, but my concern is that for five years we have had a strategic literacy plan, yet we still do not seem to know what we are doing with respect to a plan to ensure that Adult Basic Education, at the first level, is available all across the Province. We have a pilot project. We have a whole crab industry shut down because they do not want to engage in a pilot project. All we have in literacy, after five years, is a pilot project under Adult Basic Education with less than 100 students in it. Years ago, and not that long ago, Madam Speaker, in the 1980s and 1990s, we had 200 students at the ABE Level I in the public college campuses, and probably another 1,000 throughout the Province in the outreach centres that we had offering these kinds of programs. Today we have 100.

I have heard - and I am not sure of the details of this. I know it was a big issue a few years ago when we had a plethora of private colleges out there who were offering Adult Basic Education programs for free as sort of a come on to students. They would get them in for Adult Basic Education Programs and then use it as a marketing device to sell them an expensive program. We had that happening a few years ago. In fact, the government of the day allowed the College of the North Atlantic to get out of the Adult Basic Education program which was offered at a very professional level through the public college system.

Since then, when the college got out of the Level I programs, community organizations were doing it with federal literacy grant programs, well-meaning organizations who did not really have the capacity, often, to deliver these programs on a consistent basis. They were dependent on funding, the funding was based on continuing to get grants, and it was not really a satisfactory system. I still do not think that we have a satisfactory system.

I heard the minister talk a lot about the development council and how it worked and the evaluation and all of that. We understand the result of that is, we no longer have the development council. What I am very concerned about is what exactly does the government plan to do in terms of ensuring that this program is available throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, because there is a need for it. Every time we hear the statistics about literacy or the lack of literacy in Newfoundland and Labrador they are always astounding. The level of what is called functional illiteracy - and I did not hear a statistic from the minister - but often we hear levels of 25 per cent or 30 per cent, which basically means that there are that many people in our Province over the age of fifteen who are unable to use written language in a functional way, to understand how to fill out a form, to understand how to read a recipe in a recipe book, to read the paper and find out what is going on, or to use a computer.

These are considered, in our modern society, very basic necessary skills, and people who do not have them also suffer from a lot of other problems as a result. They have to pretend - I have seen people do this, Madam Speaker - oh, I cannot read that because I left my glasses home. If anybody here has never seen somebody do that, they have not been around very much, because people do that because they have to. They have to cover up the fact that they never properly learned how to read. The school system failed them. There are other reasons. They have learning disabilities. There are lots of reasons why people do not get to learn to read on their way through school. We can criticize our school system for that or we can criticize our social structure for not having enough resources within a family or within a community to ensure that people have opportunities to do that. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, we have that kind of high rate of functional illiteracy and we really do need a determined effort by government to do something about it.

We do have, I understand, a decent Level II system and Level III system in our community colleges, in our public colleges. I think it is probably also offered in our private colleges, I do not know for sure. The system is available. I do not know how much government funding there is on the federal level to ensure that the federal government, for example, offers that to people who are in need of job training and job support. The starting point has to be the adult basic literacy and that ought to be available on a very wide spread basis without any discrimination on the basis of geography as to where people are from.

We do need funding for programs. We have an excellent one here in St. John's. I do not know of other examples throughout the Province, but if you look at the Brother TI Murphy Centre here in St. John's they do bring a lot of people into that program, many of whom have, for one reason or another, dropped out of high school, sometimes for social reasons, sometimes for economic reasons, and other reasons, who do not get to complete their high school education. They have a program that they can relate to at the Brother TI Murphy Centre, which is sort of an alternative school in a way, Madam Speaker, but they have a very successful program. I have been there many times. It is in my district. I have been invited there on a number of occasions to participate in their graduation ceremonies. They have a high degree of motivation amongst the students who participate in this program. There is a need for continued funding. It is a very good model, and we should see places outside St. John's where this can be available. I hope that this government is considering funding and supporting that sort of thing as well.

We have another problem, Madam Speaker, and this is related, in a way, to literacy issues, but also into terms of getting people on their feet, young people in particular who may not have proper education, some of whom do not necessarily get the level of support they need from the Department of Social Services, or Human Resources and Employment, I think parts of it are called now.

I do think, Madam Speaker, that passage of this bill puts an end to a particular approach to literacy development, but at the same time, other than the conduct of a pilot project we have a seriously underfunded issue in the Level I adult literacy program in the Province. There are not enough people being reached. There are very low achievement levels in terms of the number of people who are able to pass through these programs. There is a serious need for more programs for young adults. You cannot throw everybody into the same category, Madam Speaker, you have to have an approach that is going to be effective in reaching people and allowing people to come forward.

Madam Speaker, during the early years of TAGS, during the cod motorium, there was a lot of money spent by the federal government on the TAGS program. They wanted to see some programming as part of that. I do know that the fisherman's union, under the very able leadership of Father Des McGrath, undertook a literacy program. I think they might have called it something else. They might have called it something else, Madam Speaker, but it was a program that was available throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a computer based program. They had people in fishing communities, fishermen, plant workers, people who had an opportunity to learn literacy through a computer program. I think they did so by going to a session to learn about computers. Part of it was to not only learn computer literacy but also to learn some of the skills with language that they did not get the first time around in school for one reason or another.

You have to have a program that people are able to come forward to without feeling that there is any stigma attached to it. You have to have an approach to people that brings them in the door, makes them feel that they have some positive place to go, and make sure that there is adequate support. It cannot be an ad hoc basis. It cannot be a one-off deal. You can't just, sort of, come to town and say: We are going to have a literacy program now and everybody here who cannot read come forward, and we will have a meeting tomorrow night and all of you folks who cannot read come to this meeting. Well, it would be a pretty small meeting, I say, Madam Speaker, a meeting of one person, the person who called the meeting, because nobody is going to come forward. You have to have something that is well thought out, something that is on a consistent basis, something that is going to be there not just on a one-off opportunity, but something that involves a plan.

We have had a Strategic Literacy Plan since 2001, I say to the Minister of Education. I do not know whether the minister has been following it, or the previous minister, but we are here five years later just about, four years later, and we still have a lot of ad hoc approach being taken, especially at the ABE Level I system, which is the intake for this, which could encourage people to move on to the other programs of the Level II and Level III, or get into a program if they want to take some specific training. My understanding is that the Level I program, at this point, is seriously underfunded. I just heard the previous speaker, the Finance critic, say that $80,000 has been taken from it. I hope that is not true, and maybe the minister, when it closes debate, will confirm that. I do want to know what level of support this minister has obtained from Cabinet for the Level I program. Is it going to be available, I, II and III?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and thirty thousand.

MR. HARRIS: One hundred and thirty thousand?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and thirty thousand.

MR. HARRIS: Two hundred and thirty thousand. I would like to know whether this is just a continuation to the pilot project or are we going to have implementation of a full program throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that is not restricted by availability based on geography.

I think it is true to say, Madam Speaker, if the basic literacy was more accessible, there would be more students just like there were years ago. The figure I have been given is 1,000 to 1,200 students involved in the adult basic literacy program, Level I, about fifteen years ago, not because there were more people who needed it, because the literacy levels on a percentage basis seemed to be just as high as they were ten years ago, fifteen years, and twenty years ago, when I first made inquiries into what the notion of functional literacy was and what kind of levels we had in the Province.

I do hope, Madam Speaker, that this minister is able to tell the House that we are going to make some significant progress on this, that we are not going to have an ad hoc program, that the pilot project is over and we are now down to the real thing, and that literacy programs are going to be available throughout the Province. I hope that he restores them to the College of the North Atlantic and the public campuses so they can provide an ongoing program at a high professional level that is going to continue year after year and be available to people.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to rise and have a few words with regard to Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act.

Madam Speaker, the Literacy Development Council was an initiative that was started in 1994, but certainly literacy has been a program that has been ongoing in our Province for quite a long time. Actually, I reflect back to the early 1990s when I was involved in starting a number of literacy development projects in my own district, the district that I now represent. Even until today we have five of those projects that still continue as literacy development centres that provide a broad range of opportunities to people within the communities and within the regions.

Madam Speaker, the Literacy Development Council, in itself, has done, in the past, some good work within Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand that first-hand, having been involved with the council, having worked closely, in fact, with a lady by the name of Linda Coles, when she was in the Department of Education. Her position, I think, has since been redundant, but she was responsible for literacy development as part of that department.

I can honestly say that, through the literacy groups in my own district, we have had a good relationship with the council over the years, and as a result of it, and as a result of funding from groups like the National Secretariat for Literacy through the federal government, we were able to do a great deal of initiatives in rural areas, in a very rural area of this Province.

I think back, starting in the early 1990s when there was a cod moratorium and you had hundreds of people in those communities who were displaced from employment and they had to look at retraining and re-entering the workforce, and those literacy centres became invaluable to them, because it was an opportunity for them at that time to get some very basic learning skills that they needed to be able to go from Partners in Learning centres where they had a one-on-one tutor into a Level II program and a Level III program. In fact, I know a number of these individuals over the years went on to do even higher learning. I know one individual who had her family raised, who went through this literacy program and ended up retraining for a job in the mining industry, who now works in Labrador West as a truck driver; one of few women I know, actually, in one of those non-traditional occupations, who works in the mine there and is very good at what she does.

I know a number of other individuals personally who went through these literacy development programs and went on to do training. I think of a person who did the Licenced Practical Nursing program after they came out of the literacy program itself, and another person who went on to do an office management program, but these types of programs and services, in order for them to be meaningful, in order for them to be productive in these communities, they need to have the proper funding, the proper funding to maintain them. That is one of the challenges that I find we are facing right now.

I know in my district we have a literacy centre in the Labrador Straits. We have one in Mary's Harbour, one in Port Hope Simpson, one in Charlottetown, and one in Cartwright. Right now, I know that the biggest challenge that they face is being able to maintain the funding that they need to keep their doors open and to keep their programs going. In Port Hope Simpson, we also have a learning centre that offers Level II learning and Level III learning to prepare people for high school graduation so that they can go on to post-secondary institutions. Again, I know a lot of people who have gone through these programs and they have been very valuable to them in their lives.

My concern right now, I guess, is with the repealing of the Literacy Development Council, which I know was an option that the Council themselves put forward to the government, but I have to ask: What stage will this take now? What will be the plan now for literacy development in the Province? Where will the government move in terms of the next five years, the types of literacy training programs that they will offer in communities?

It is not just in times like when you have a major closure in an industry, like we did in the fishery in the early 1990s, that you need these programs. They need to continue on a regular basis. Even when you look at what is happening today, with the number of people who have just been displaced from employment in Harbour Breton and in Grand Falls, all of these people, I am sure, are at stages in their lives where they are going to have to retrain for other jobs and other industries.

Madam Speaker, I am sure that having the kind of institution and training available to them to prepare them for those next steps is going to be very important. That cannot happen unless you have investment and you have a plan. I know as well, from being a volunteer with literacy groups for quite a long time, there is also a stigmatism attached to it and you are not just going to get people walking in off the street admitting that they need to have this kind of training. In lots of cases it needs to be encouraged, it needs to be promoted, and there is a way in which you can attract people and allow them to be comfortable in that kind of environment, admitting after a long time that they do not have the necessary skills that they need. Also, it is not always easy, being an adult who has probably been in the workforce for the past twenty years, to go back to school and be able to attain the skills that they need.

I think there have to be support mechanisms there so that, when you have outreach programs or when you have literacy centres, they need to be nurtured, they need to be funded appropriately, in order for them to be productive and for literacy programs, even at Level I, Level II and Level III stages, in communities to be effective.

Madam Speaker, literacy development does not just start and stop with early learning or with learning at a Level I class in society. Literacy continues and is a lifelong process for many of us. I guess, when you look at what is happening in our schools right now, it is a very important component of what the requirements will be for our children in future years.

This year we have seen another 140 teachers being taken out of the school system in this Province, which will make a total of, I think, around 145, a total of over 400 teachers in the past eighteen months, going to come out of our schools. I know, being a member who represents a rural district, the impact of any teaching units in any school is significant. I know that because I have all small schools in my district, and in very rural areas. In a lot of the cases right now the human resources in those schools, the teachers there, are already stretched to the max. They are already being able to provide a vast range of curriculum to a small number of children, and it is very, very difficult. The more that you downsize in those schools, the more units that you take out, I have to say, the greater the challenge is for the teachers who are left there but also for the children who are being educated in those schools.

I know, Madam Speaker, that more and more government is moving towards distance education programs, replacing the teachers in the classroom with technology, and that works to some extent, I have to admit. I know a lot of kids in my own district who went through school, did distance education programs in advanced courses, who came out on the honour roll, won scholarships and went to university, but they had to be at an academic level in order to get real value out of those particular programs. We all know that in our classrooms we do not always have children who have that academic advantage. We have children as well who are at a more medium level, have trouble learning in schools and in the classroom. For those people, I would suggest that having the human resources, the actual teacher in the classroom, is probably most important to those students in our system.

I cannot stress enough that while distance education will allow the more academically inclined children to take advantage of advanced programming in rural schools and will work effectively to do that, it does not meet the curriculum need for all the children in the school system. Therefore, we have to be very conscientious of where these teacher cuts are taking place, when they are taking place in small rural schools where children still have to get an adequate number of credits, an adequate curriculum, in order to meet entrance requirements into our universities and our colleges to be able to participate in higher learning.

It is always disappointing, Madam Speaker, every time I hear of more teachers coming out of the school system, not just this year, not just last year or the year before, but I have always found it disappointing. I always know that it is the children in the rural areas of our Province who quite often suffer the most and are challenged the most when it comes to learning, and those things happen.

I would certainly encourage the minister - because I heard the minister make a speech on one occasion about teachers being cut in the schools. I think he really believed what he said, when he stood that day and said that one teacher taken out of a school was one teacher too many. I certainly agree with that. I would only ask that, in his capacity now, where he has the authority to make decisions, the authority to determine where these cuts take place and where they don't, I can only ask him that he be very conscious of the rural schools in our Province, of how stretched to the max the teachers are in those schools already, how difficult it is to provide for a proper curriculum and proper learning in schools where you have very few teachers and very few children as well. I ask the minister that he be very conscientious of that in his capacity when those decisions are being made.

Madam Speaker, I also want to talk about a number of initiatives that we have been able to do as part of our literacy program. I think that in our area we have certainly been an example for the rest of the Province to follow when it comes to literacy development. We have had some very strong, very key people who have pushed literacy over the years. One of them is Agnes Pike. I remember back many years ago working with Agnes when she started the first literacy program in The Labrador Straits, the Partners in Learning, which over the years has helped hundreds of people in that area attain the literacy skills that they needed to be able to go on and do further learning and further education. I know that it is the contributions of people like that, that makes it successful in the beginning, but also these people are often quite stressed because they have trouble coming up with the resources they need to carry on their programs.

I know right now in the district we did everything from producing newspapers that were able to be read by people with lower literacy levels in the region. That was a very local interest, and local content, which encouraged people to read more in their communities and understand more about what was happening. We did initiatives where we had private tutoring for people who wanted to upgrade their literacy skills to go on to do anything from a fishing masters program at the Marine Institute to writing their driver's examination. We had tutoring programs that allowed them to do that.

One of the things that we did right throughout the district, actually, in three or four of our learning centres in Port Hope Simpson and Mary's Harbour and in The Labrador Straits primarily, and in Charlottetown, we did what was called a collection of history. Basically, there were several publications, and I think right now there are probably six publications that have been done which document oral histories of people in the region. It became a very effective education tool for educating our seniors, teaching our seniors how to read, how to write, because it was material that was interesting to them. Therefore, with these publications and the number of books that we were able to do, we were able to bring these literacy programs to another sector of our population who would not have normally engaged in it.

Madam Speaker, there have been a great deal of things done, I am sure, not just in my district but all over the Province, with regard to literacy. There has been a lot of money invested. When we were in government we made it a priority of our government to invest in literacy initiatives, and certainly to invest in the Literacy Development Council which was a key component of that.

We also allowed groups throughout the Province, through these small bits of investment that we were able to give them, to leverage more money from the National Secretariat for Literacy, where they were able to obtain core funding and funding for special initiatives.

I think it is important for government to have a good strategy and a good plan for literacy development. I think they need to lay it out. They need to be able to put the adequate amount of funding in there that is needed in communities. I think it especially needs to be done in rural areas of our Province where there are still major transitions occurring with regard to their local economy, where we still have a tremendous shift in industry. We still are seeing a lot of job loss in rural areas of the Province. Therefore, it is more important than ever for them now to be able to have the opportunity to get literacy training and be able to do Level II or Level III programs in their own areas, so that they can go on to do courses and trades at our colleges and our universities in order to retrain for other jobs that may be available in the rural areas in which they live or in other parts of our Province.

I ask the minister to certainly keep that in mind, and in his capacity, to look after education in the Province, to always be cognizant of the impact that you are having on students in rural areas every time a teaching unit is taken out of one of those schools, and wherever possible, to try and maintain the complement of teachers who are there for the benefit of the children who have to learn in those schools.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to make a few comments with respect to Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act.

I listened intently to the minister's introduction, and do understand fully the report that was done by the Council from 1994, and the fact that they, themselves, despite their best efforts - because a lot of people, voluntarily, had put some tremendous efforts into trying to make the original concept of the Literacy Development Council function and work and meet its goals and objectives. I remember, in the early days of that, in the Wells' administration, having attended the first ever Peter Gzowski literacy golf tournament, which the Department of Education has been a sponsor of ever since. It is fairly typical, as a matter of fact. I attended on behalf of Premier Wells at the time and was glad to do so and actually met Mr. Gzowski, since deceased. He was here for the inaugural Gzowski golf literacy tournament, the PGI, as it is called, the Peter Gzowski Invitational. That event itself has raised significant amounts of money for literacy initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador and right across the country.

The concept actually, I think, came from a discussion with Mr. Gzowski and organizers, that the government wanted to show leadership in literacy initiatives and that there were other groups out there, like the Gzowski tournament group, who were willing to raise funds and contribute to programs, but they would not contribute programs to a Department of Education, to a government. They might very well support Rabbittown or other local initiatives, but they were not going to give money to a Department of Education and say, if a Department of Education was putting in $100,000, they would match it. If Rabbittown was trying to do a literacy initiative for $30,000 or $40,000, they would certainly try to match that.

That was the whole concept, that maybe if there was this arm's-length removed council, they might, in fact, have some success in attracting some financial contributions from large corporations, from donors, and from bequeaths in wills and so on, of people who saw the need for literacy initiatives. It is unfortunate that it really did not reach its goals and objectives. The group itself, after quite a bit of introspection, did come forward with the report and the two alternatives as pointed out to the government.

The unfortunate part is that we, in the last few months, as we were looking at it, and the new government now in eighteen months, have not found a way to reinvent it and make the concept come back to life. That is the part we need to see, what the go-forward plan is, to try to continue to tap into that and those external sources of money, rather than just the government money, because there are other sources out there and people are willing to give. We look forward to seeing more details of a plan where something will replace this. I commend Mr. Fagan and others, and a whole group of people who chaired the organization and worked hard as volunteers. They did try very, very hard to make this work and to bring it together, and could not quite succeed.

It is unfortunate that we have to see the Literacy Development Council dissolved in this legislation, because it has not functioned for the last while anyway, and this is just a housekeeping piece of legislation. From that point of view, Madam Speaker, I point out quite clearly that we will support the legislation because it is the right thing to do. This group is defunct, they are not functioning, and we look forward to the kind of things that are coming forward to replace this and make sure that literacy initiatives are still a real focus in the government.

The statement that I listened to, from the minister introducing as well, was this: That is was needed then. It was a good concept and this idea of a council was needed then. My contention, Madam Speaker, is that it is just as much or more needed now, today. The need has not diminished. As a matter of fact, remember when that was as well, in1994. It was shortly after the cod moratorium and a big wave of out-migration. A headline from yesterday in The Packet that I know the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Renewal did not want to see - she certainly did not include it in her speech last night. The headline says, from the peninsula news, which is the Bonavista Peninsula: Bonavista may see another wave of out-migration. That is a big headline. It is big bold print. It is the top of the page and it is a big, big story. They are comparing it, by the way, to the cod moratorium, and they are saying the impasse in crab, if it does not get resolved, is having people already decide to leave home. Some have already made the decision.

The story talks about the fact that they are leaving home just like some people did over a decade ago without the literacy functional skills and without the training. They are leaving fish plant jobs that they went into right out of high school, or some of them did not graduate from high school. They do not have post-secondary training and certificates and diplomas, but now some of them have already decided to leave because there are quota cuts which means they have already known they are not going to get their full hours this year anyway, even if there wasn't a new system trying to be implemented by the government. This cries out to the fact that there is a literacy need for this group. The Literacy Development Council was to look at not only literacy needs, post-secondary, Adult Basic Education, but also to support the kinds of things that were being done in pre-school, head-start programs and early childhood development learning. Give them a head start on the skills. It was the full gamut, life-long learning.

I am glad to see that the minister has delved into this, because he was the Parliamentary Secretary for literacy before he became the minister. Understanding full well that he has paid particular attention to these initiatives, the need is just as great or greater today. Of course, the current impasse - and by the way, there is a bit of irony in this, Madam Speaker, because the other headline says: Worry increases as impasse continues. This has been written by a journalist, it has been screened by an editor, and in the headline, guess what we have? We have the word impasse spelled incorrectly in a major newspaper. I guess they did not go through spell check. It shows again, that even those who are deemed literate can even make certain mistakes like that, and I am sure that the paper is probably a little embarrassed by it. There is no such word, that I know of, in the English language as i-m-p-a-s-s. There is impassable and other things, but impasse has always been spelled in history, as I understand it, i-m-p-a-s-s-e. In the rest of the story it is spelled i-m-p-a-s-s-e, but in the headline it is i-m-p-a-s-s. So, you can see that there is always a need to be cognizant and aware of the need for literacy development.

The other issue that I would like to reference is this - let me say again, Madam Speaker, understanding the good sense of this bill coming forward, to dissolve something that is already defunct. I would ask again, in his closing remarks, if the minister might talk to us a little bit more. We are going to vote for the bill, because it does make sense, it is housekeeping. Talk to us a little bit more about the plans for the future, because this was a good idea that people worked very hard to try to succeed with and they did not, despite their best efforts. I think more people in the Province would like to hear a bit more about what is the replacement plan, what is the new approach. This government talks a lot about strategic plans, short-term plans, long-term plans, and I think people would be interested to know, as would we here, what are going to be the kinds of replacement initiatives that this government will go ahead with. I know that the minister takes it seriously, did when he was the Parliamentary Secretary and does now.

Let me make this comment, as well: We need initiatives in places like Bonavista, in the headlines, and we need initiatives in places like Harbour Breton. I think the report today is that there are already fifty to sixty families in Harbour Breton making their plans. Some have already left, and others are making their plans to leave, as we speak. Again, of course, we had a government, unfortunately as was pointed out today, that did not stand up to the fish company and demand that they do something in Harbour Breton. There was one of the former employees today, on the evening news, who was talking about his family having to leave and needing to be retrained because they always worked in a fish plant and now they need some help with literacy initiatives, because they are going into industrial settings on the Mainland, similar to the Bonavista Peninsula. Maybe it is only happening in rural parts of the Province, on peninsulas like the Connaigre Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula. What we have to understand and remember is this, there was a very articulate spokesperson for Harbour Breton on the evening news who said there had been three operators of fish plants in Harbour Breton prior to Fishery Products International who left last November. All three of the prior operators left the town but left the fish behind. They left the quota. They left the quota.

When the minister was asked today, and has been asked repeatedly, what about a quota for Harbour Breton, earlier on he said: We cannot do it. Strange thing! It happened three times before. All three of the prior operators vacated the plant, vacated the community, but left the quota behind, and another operator came in and took over the plant and ran the facility so that the people could continue on with their way of life. Very telling. We have a government today that says: We couldn't even talk to FPI about leaving the quota behind. Well, they could, right under the FPI Act.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely related to literacy, I say to the Government House Leader, because these particular people are more desperately - guess who is down in Harbour Breton today competing to provide literacy programs? The College of the North Atlantic and a couple of private training institutions. It is all about literacy, because it is all about education. It really comes home to roost when you have a disruption like is happening in Harbour Breton today, when the government did not step in when they could have.

The Minister of Fisheries bristled today when that was said across the floor. He got angry because that suggestion was made, that he could have done something about Harbour Breton. He could have told FPI that, either you stay in there and operate or you leave the fish behind just like the three prior operators did, and then those people would not be needing these literacy programs, they might still be able to stay in the community and process fish like they have done in that community for fifty years. It is all tied together, I say to the Government House Leader and anyone else that has to listen.

We have the Literacy Development Council now, rightfully so, a piece of legislation repealing it, because it has not been functioning and the group itself came to that conclusion themselves. We have a greater need for literacy initiatives in communities like Harbour Breton because of inaction by the government when they could have acted in other areas. They absolutely abdicated their responsibility under the FPI Act.

They could have done, like a previous administration did, an administration that I led. If they were not sure they had the authority already, which we are convinced they do, to make the company leave the fish behind, they could have changed the Act. We changed the Act only two years ago and told them they had to stay in the rural communities or else. That is what we told them two years with the support of all members of the House. I say, Mr. Speaker, it was needed then and it is needed now as much or more then ever, when you see the Peninsulas in rural Newfoundland and Labrador being depopulated and people leaving because of things that are happening, some, like Fishery Products International in Harbour Breton, completely within the control of the government, and they chose to let the big company have their way rather than stand up to them.

You saw people tonight on the news crying out in Grand Falls-Windsor, people who came right out of high school and worked in the Abitibi mill. They are talking now about the fact that they have to go to the mainland. They have to head out. They were hoping to raise their families in Central Newfoundland, just like their parents and grandparents did. But, what do they have to do? Limited skills, came right out of high school, like some of my older brothers did, went right into the mill, learned the job on the job - were fortunate enough to do so - worked there all of their lives, do not have post-secondary training, do not have diplomas, do not have certificates, do not have degrees, got lots of ability, lots of inherent skill for a certain job in a mill but have to head off to the mainland where somebody is going to ask them for a piece of paper that they do not have. What do they need? They need some help now with literacy at that level, some retraining because that is what is going to enable them to succeed. They do not think they are going to succeed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Unlike the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development would like to have tried to make us believe last night, that everything is rosy, everything is wonderful. The plans are all in place. She would make you believe that it is like the spring, April showers bring May flowers. A bit of sun now and everything is going to be wonderful in a few more days. Well, it is far from it, I can say.

Here I can say again - and I will conclude with this, Mr. Speaker - I think if we are going to see some hope in this with respect to literacy, I would hope we hear it in the concluding remarks from the minister about what is going to replace the demise of the Literacy Development Council; which he understands was needed then, was there for the right reasons, did not succeed despite their best efforts. I think everybody in the Province would be interested to hear what the plans are for the future because we do need some definitive plans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that I can address some of the concerns that were expressed by the hon. members opposite. One thing is for sure, that I guess we are on a common page when it comes to literacy, certainly the importance of lifelong learning and to put together strategies that will address the needs of the lifelong learners who are out and about in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just to go through a couple of things - of course, other concerns can be addressed during committee, but I guess the future is the main question that was asked by the hon. members. It is true, when we look at the Literacy Development Council, that they did indeed cease their operations as of December, 2004. During that shutdown of the Literacy Development Council there was a group of individuals who came forward, and these are leaders in literacy throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. There were fifteen of them. They called themselves Literacy Network Ad-hoc Group, or LNAG. They came forward with a proposal to act as the group that would take care of the transition between the LDC and to establish a grassroots network throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, this group used the surplus funds that were part of the Literacy Development Council. Over $100,000 was put forward to them to carry out their duties as they prepare now for a coming together of the literacy network that is throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. They are going to come together to put together that network which is necessary to carry on the work of literacy throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in the years to come.

Of course the evaluation report, I say to the hon. members, clearly stated that it needed to come from the grassroots. So these fifteen people - and it was interesting, one of the people's names that was mentioned, Ms Agnes Pike from Southern Labrador, is one such person. She, with others, have put forth a proposal whereby they are the transition group between the Literacy Development Council and the grassroots network that will emerge in their consultation, in working with the literacy groups. They will continue on then and put forth a plan in consultation with the government as to where they go.

It was mentioned, of course, that it was expected that the new group would be a government appointed board. I say, far from that, that government has recognized and listened to the literacy network of people who have come forward, who have asked that the government be more than arm's-length, more hands off as they work through the literacy development for the future throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. So, this grassroots group have a vision as to where it would go.

I say, again, it is a grassroots group that have come together. They are working towards putting together a network that will certainly address the literacy needs of the Province. That is on the one side of it, and I say to the hon. members, that is the community network. Now, there is another side to it as well. Some of the hon. members brought up with regard to where government is as it regards adult learning. Adult learning, we know, is a very, very important piece. We know that in today's world, no matter what career you are or what stage you are in your journey through life, there comes a time perhaps when you have to look at another direction, for whatever reasons. We must be ready, as a government, to provide workers, individuals who step forward, who want to pursue some aspect of lifelong learning, whether it is to upgrade their reading skills, their writing skills, whether it is to move on to post-secondary, whether it is simply to be able to function by reading the various printed media or the printed forms that are in our society today.

As a government, we did do a reorganization of our department. We do have, I guess when we look at it, a division now of lifelong learning, which includes the early childhood, which includes the adult learning, really from birth to death. With that in mind, we are continuing on. The pilot project for the adult learning was mentioned. We are into the second and final year of that. The evaluation is currently ongoing as they wind down now to clue up in June. There was mention of $80,000 which was taken out of the Budget. I say that would have been the operating expenses that the Literacy Development Council would be looking at, but of course their operations have ceased. That money is no longer required, so that would have been taken out.

With regard to the pilot project for the adult learning one, that was federally funded; half and half between the provincial government and the federal government over two years. That federal funding will come to an end as of June. Again, the government has dedicated something to the tune of $230,000 to continue - once we look at the evaluation - to offer the Adult Basic Education throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, with the Adult Basic Education as well, the initiative of the department is to look at the different levels of the adult basic learning, the three levels. Level one, which now has been taken care of by the pilot project, but levels two and three, because the high school curriculum has changed drastically since the last revision, it is absolutely necessary that be revised. As well, the GED will be looked at - another aspect of adult learning - and a strategy put in place to make sure that on intake the learner is placed in the appropriate learning level so that they can move on. So we are getting to it.

Just to clue up. Again, I feel that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated he is in support of this piece of legislation. It is necessary. It is moving forward according to the wishes of the literacy community; unanimously, I would add. This is a transition that is taking place this year, and before year's end, we fully expect that there will be a grassroots organization fashioned by the people themselves who are involved. Of course, as we move into committee stage, I guess any specific questions that need to be asked, we certainly will address them.

So, with that in mind, I hope that I have indeed addressed some of the concerns and indicated that there is a future ahead, and that we will be given the opportunity in committee to further discuss it.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will move that it go to the next stage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act. (Bill 6)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 6)

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 the said bill, Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act.

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 House on the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act." (Bill 6)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 6 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 6 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 6, An Act To Repeal the Literacy Development Council Act, passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

MR. E. BYRNE: We are on a roll, Mr. Speaker (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is obliged to ask the House.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do now move third reading of Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6, An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council 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 Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act. (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 Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 6)

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

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 1)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and say a few words on Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, in second reading. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a pretty straightforward bill, actually. It could be referred to as the Dorothy Wyatt bill. The former Mayor of the City of St. John's -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) financing bill, is it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, there are two. They are both here. Just give me a chance, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Relax.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, again, as I was saying, could be referred to as the Dorothy Wyatt bill. The former Mayor of the City of St. John's ran for election in 2001 and regrettably passed away during the election. In actual fact, on election day, she got elected. The cost to the City of St. John's to have a by-election was upwards of $50,000 or $60,000. This bill would correct that problem and deal with the consequences of the withdrawal or the death of a nominated candidate for a municipal election. The bill would also amend the act to permit municipalities to enact regulations to establish limits upon campaign contributions and expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, this would allow the municipalities, as stated, give them the wherewithal to put in place regulations to control campaign expenditures and campaign donations. It is something that the City of St. John's and other municipalities have been requesting, and the Federation of Municipalities certainly supports this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Other than to say those things, it is a bit more than housekeeping. I had a discussion with my critic, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. I think the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune will be making a small amendment to this piece of legislation. We had some discussions on that and we both agree on the amendment that is going to be forthcoming. It has to deal with the deposit of an individual who passes away during an election, if that should happen in the future. It is pretty remote but it does happen and, rather than have that nomination fee forfeited, it would return to the estate. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, there is not much more to say.

Thank you.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister has said, this is a two-part bill, very straightforward. The first part of the bill, as he said, is primarily the result of the election here in St. John's where the former mayor, Mayor Wyatt, passed away but still got elected to the council. Under this situation, that would not happen. The legislation would be in place to prevent that from happening in the future.

As the minister already said, we have talked about it in Clause 21.2 (1), in Committee. We will bring a small amendment to that, as he said, such that if that does happen in the future, the fee that was paid would be then passed back to the Crown rather than be forfeited.

The second part, Mr. Speaker, talking about election campaigns and so on, that was primarily, I would think, in place for the larger municipalities like the City of St. John's where, when their election comes up, will probably have a number of people running for mayor and a number of people running for deputy mayor and councillors and so on. It has always been somewhat problematic in the past, where people have not disclosed the amounts of money that they spent on a campaign and so on. It has been contentious among some of the people on the council, the present council that is already there. They are primarily asking for that.

This piece of legislation would cover that, and I can say to the minister - and he is aware of that - for many of the municipalities, though, in the rural parts of the Province, the small municipalities will not have to worry about election expenses. The thing you would have to worry about is enough people volunteering to come forward and submit their names so that - we can probably sometimes not even have enough for a quorum. There is nothing contentious in this, as the minister has said, and I concur with that.

As I said in Committee, we will make the small amendment, but it is a piece of housekeeping legislation that is good.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this legislation. I am afraid, first of all, I have to differ with the minister and take him to task, frankly, for talking about this as the Dorothy Wyatt bill. Those who put this forth as the Dorothy Wyatt bill, I think, are really insulting the memory of Dorothy Wyatt, who ran for city council. The fact that she died before the election or after the election is irrelevant. The fact that they had to have a by-election, in the normal course of events, that would happen if she died a day after the election. Why we have to go through all this big elaborate thing of bringing in legislation to the House just in case this might happen again some other time, is almost as if Ms Wyatt did something wrong by dying during an election campaign, and we have to pass legislation in this House to prevent the problem if something like that happens again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous.

People in that election - and I know that election well - after Dorothy Wyatt died, went out and voted for her out of respect for what she had done for the City of St. John's, and the contribution that she had made to the city, and the fact that she was still running in an election, despite her advanced years, because she believed in what she was doing and people believed in her. I was one of those people who went out and voted for her, despite the fact that she had already died.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to belittle her contribution by saying this is the Dorothy Wyatt - we have to make sure this does not happen again. So what, that they had to have a by-election. That is not the end of the world, to have a by-election in the City of St. John's. It may have cost a bit of money. Whether it should have cost what it cost, I do not know. The City of St. John's spends a lot of money on things like elections. I know they spent an awful lot of money on a recount when I ran for mayor, a lot more than they needed to, in order to count the ballots properly. I think to go through this trouble is really unnecessary.

The important part of this bill, as I see it, is the part that requires a disclosure by candidates of contributions to their election campaigns. We have had in the City of St. John's a need for this type of legislation for some time. I am glad to see that this is coming through, that candidates for council, and candidates for mayor and deputy mayor, are required now to disclose their contributions and to make it known if these contributions are more than $100, similar to a requirement that we have when running for public office in this House.

A lot of issues come before municipal councils, and in particular larger municipalities, involving millions of dollars and stakes that are involved. There has often been suspicion and accusations thrown around that people were supporting particular candidates for office because they had developments coming forward that they wanted to see passed. This, at least, Mr. Speaker, puts everything out in the open. People have to disclose where the money is coming from and what they spent it on. I think that is a very positive step forward.

The other part of it, Mr. Speaker, I think, in relation to candidates dying during an election, that is not such an inconvenience to the public as to have to have separate legislation for that. It is obviously a tragedy for a family or an individual to die while seeking office, but no less so than to die in office, Mr. Speaker, and a by-election be called as a result. It is almost being suggested that somehow or other she did something wrong by dying while she was running for public office and we have to have legislation in her name to make sure we do not have that problem again and that the next person gets elected.

I do not think it is right, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the legislation in that kind of flippant way, or gives the respect that it deserves to a woman like Dorothy Wyatt or anybody who seeks public office, even to go on to say, as the legislation did, that in the event of someone dying their deposit if forfeited. That shows the nature, in my view, of the legislation, and obviously that has been recognized by the Opposition critic as well as being a little bit much, to go so far as to provide for the forfeiting of a deposit for someone who was so inconsiderate as to die while seeking office, Mr. Speaker.

We are in a Province where we are trying to encourage people to run for public office, not trying to find ways of making it difficult for people to run, and even go so far as to forfeit a deposit if they be so unlucky, or unfortunate, as to die while seeking office.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble supporting the part of the legislation that has to do with ensuring that there is a disclosure of contributions in a municipal election. I fully support that. I think it is long overdue, and I would like to see it implemented in time for the fall election.

There is another issue, Mr. Speaker, that has not come out. It is obviously not in the bill, because this government has not seen fit to deal with it. My colleague from Labrador West has made the suggestion numerous times in the last while that, in the forthcoming election, there should be an opportunity for municipalities to vote as to whether or not they want to continue to have VLTs in their communities. There is support for that in a number of communities around the Province. I understand the City of St. John's is opposed to it, and I understand that the executive, or at least the president, of the Federation of Municipalities is opposed to it, but many people in many communities around the Province see VLTs as a scourge, Mr. Speaker, and if this government is not prepared to do anything about it, itself, except to say that somewhere down the road we are going to remove 15 per cent of them next year or the year after, instead of taking the bull by the horns and doing something significant right away, as Nova Scotia is doing, then at least we should be giving people an opportunity to decide for their own communities whether they want to take action and have VLTs banned from their community.

It is not good enough for one store or one bar to do it. I know on Bell Island there was some interest in doing that a few years ago, of taking VLTs out, but one of the establishments said that if we take it out then everybody will just head for the competition and we cannot afford to do it. So, Mr. Speaker, giving a community a chance to do that in a situation as we have in this Province would be a good thing, and I would have been a lot happier to see that as part of this amendment here rather than going on to a big elaborate scheme to avoid the - I do not know how often it has happened, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the minister can tell us what a scourge this is in the Province, how often this mischief occurs and someone actually dies while seeking public office when running for a mayor or council in Newfoundland and Labrador that we need legislation to avoid the possible consequences of an individual dying during the three or four weeks that happen to be part of an election campaign.

I would rather see more substantive legislation, something that would probably and possibly improve people's lives if they were able to campaign in their own community to get rid of VLTs because of what they see happening to their neighbours, to their family members, and to others in their community who they see being affected by VLTs, and how it affects the social life, community life and financial life of the neighbours. I would be a lot happier seeing that than us going out of our way to ensure that someone who dies while seeking public office is not going to fool up the election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All I can say, after just listening to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he must be still hurting from when he ran for Mayor of the City of St. John's and got defeated.

Mr. Speaker, to make the comments that he made right there, standing on his feet, saying that this was insulting to the former Mayor of the City of St. John's, in actual fact, from my perspective, it is a tribute to name some legislation after an individual. To say that we were insulting her and belittling her, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to get on with the likes of that a few minutes ago is insulting in itself. It is insulting to the former Mayor of the City of St. John's. I knew the former Mayor, Mayor Wyatt, for many years, Mr. Speaker, and to try to cast dispersions on me on this side of the House by bringing in legislation saying that we were belittling the former Mayor of the City of St. John's, the member should be ashamed of himself. I never saw the like of it since I have been here in the House of Assembly. That man should know better, Mr. Speaker. He should know better. We are here bringing in legislation - I said, when I was on my feet, that this only happened rarely and probably will never happen again. He had to go on and on and on, as he likes to do, Mr. Speaker, on every piece of legislation that is brought forward to the House of Assembly. Again, I think the man should be ashamed of himself.

This piece of legislation is good legislation. It is supported by the Federation of Municipalities, it is supported by the Critic, the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and this man who has never served on council, who tried to get on council, who got defeated when he ran for council, is trying to say that we, on this side of the House of Assembly, are belittling the former Mayor of the City of St. John's. Absolutely insulting! Disgusting! It suits the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, with that, this piece of legislation, again, serves two purposes as we mentioned here. The point that he made with respect to the small "p" politics - trying to get a headline in a paper tomorrow, is what he is up to, Mr. Speaker. Making the comments with respect to forfeiting the fee, which I myself and the critic had a discussion on, Mr. Speaker, again goes to the point: Where is he coming from, I wonder? Where is he coming from, tonight? Again, trying to make headlines in the paper - that is what this is all about. It would make you sick, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, with that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 1)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the sitting.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act," read a second time ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 1)

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

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

The reason I say later tonight is because I know that the minister has another bill.

Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, be now read a second time.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 15)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, again just the explanation, just to read it, and make it quite clear what this Act is all about. "The purpose of this Bill is to amend the City of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act to allow the minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to establish limits on the water and sewage taxes that may be assessed against properties on which there are schools, hospitals and Crown owned buildings."

Mr. Speaker, back in The Municipalities Act, 1999 and the various acts here with the Cities of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, the schools and some of the municipalities over the past number of years have increased their taxes on the school boards and schools within a given municipality. Mr. Speaker, most municipalities were quite fair and reasonable, but many municipalities - no, a few of them, Mr. Speaker - were quite exorbitant in what they charged the schools and schools boards in their regions and their towns. I had a number of discussions with the Federation of Municipalities on this problem. I know the former minister had a number of conversations with the Federation of Municipalities and some of the towns that were charging these high rates to the school boards.

Basically, this will try to put some fairness and balance, and set certain criteria, that will be consistent throughout the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and will deal with the health care boards, the school boards, and other governmental buildings within the towns throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the government and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will be implementing some negotiations, I suppose, and implementing some discussions, for the implementation of this piece of legislation with the Federation of Municipalities. We want to sit down with those individuals, the president, the board and the Federation of Municipalities, to see how we should best go about implementing this, what kind of formulas we should be using, what is the best criteria to use, what we should base a given rate on, which would be consistent across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, through all the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a straightforward piece of legislation. I would imagine members on the other side would be commenting on this. With that, I will address any concerns that they may have in Committee or when I clue up the debate tonight.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the bill. There is no doubt about it, that I concur with the what the minister said. When I was minister of municipal affairs and this started to escalate, I said to the Federation, at the time, that it was going to be problematic, and unless the members themselves did something to police it, to keep the amounts in line that they were charging, then indeed government would eventually bring in legislation to put the amounts in that probably would, as they see it, be fair to the school boards, hospital boards, and other government boards that are regulated. Today, we see that.

I was listening to the minister, and I am not sure if I heard him say correctly or not, that he did have the support of the Federation of Municipalities on this particular piece of legislation, and that they would discuss how they would implement this piece of legislation. He might be able to address that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I am asking: Did the Federation agree with this piece of legislation being brought into place, and then you would talk to them about its implementation? Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: All right, so they have agreed with it. In that sense, then, all the minister has to do is talk to the Federation of Municipalities and decide an implementation date for this piece of legislation.

There is no doubt about it, that many of the municipalities that did that, by the way, Mr. Speaker, were smaller municipalities, a lot of them, and they did need the revenue. Revenue is very scarce in many of the smaller communities. They do not have the business base and the business tax to be able to balance their budgets, in a lot of instances. It is probably an opportunity now for the minister, as he proceeds through with preparations for next year's Budget, that they might consider doing something for the MOGs. When they bring in the new gas tax that is going to be distributed among the municipalities, that could be a way in which you could compensate for some of the dollars they would lose by having this particular amount regulated by this piece of legislation.

With that in place, I conclude my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments from my critic, and the point he made with respect to the Federation of Municipalities. I have had discussions with the Federation of Municipalities on this, telling them that this had to be done, basically, and that I would be bringing it forth. The question, I think, that needs to be answered would be how we would implement this. We would sit down and talk to the Federation about the implementation and any criteria we would put in place, the rates and that type of thing, how we would best implement this piece of legislation.

The bill itself, as I said, is a straightforward piece of legislation. It is something that we feel is necessary. Some municipalities did abuse it. They abused the power that was given to them and we did have that discussion with some municipalities, as I met with them, and said we would be addressing this. We want to basically be consistent across the Province, that one town does not charge $5,000 for a school fee and another town charge $35,000 and $40,000 next door. We just did not see the fairness or consistency in it.

One point that the critic did make, and that was with respect to revenues for the municipalities. Since I became minister, I have had a lot of discussions with the Federation with respect to trying to come up with new ways, new sources of revenues, for the municipalities, in particular the smaller municipalities within the Province, in the rural areas of this Province, Mr. Speaker. There are different methods we could use, I suppose, to get revenue sources to the municipalities, the small ones in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said a number of times, the Federation has presented a report, a task force report, to me recently, and hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we will be forthcoming with some new ideas, innovative ideas, as to how we can assist the municipalities in getting more revenues, especially if a few of the towns will be negatively impacted because of this change. That is something that we are working on. It is a very serious situation and I agree with my critic on that point.

With that, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Oh, I am sorry. We have called the wrong number. I apologize.

Is the pleasure of the House that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 15)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 15)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters dealing with Bill 15 and Bill 1.

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 Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, and Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, The City of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The City of St. John's Assessment Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on these said 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!

Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 1)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MR. LANGDON: Clause 1, Mr. Chair, of the bill is amended by striking out the words "and his or her deposit is forfeited" from the proposed subsection 21.2(1), seconded by the Member for Exploits.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune that Clause 1 be amended and the amendment is: Clause 1 of the Bill is amended by striking out the words "and his or her deposit is forfeited" from the proposed subsection 21.2(1).

The Chair rules that the amendment is in order.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment to clause 1 is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Clause 1, as amended, carried?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 1, as amended, is carried.

On motion, clause 1, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, carried with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 1, with amendment is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee will now move to Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Committee report Bill 15 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 15 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move 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 and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 1 passed with amendment, and Bill 15 passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 15 has passed without amendment. When shall this report be received?

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by agreement.

Is it the wish of the House that we will proceed to Bill 1 as well or go directly now to do third reading on Bill 15?

The Chair will call the report from Bill 1.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, passed with amendments. When shall the report be received?

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: First reading of an amendment to Bill 1.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CLERK: The second reading of the amendment to Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by agreement. The Chair acknowledges the agreement.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move third reading of Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House - I note the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ordinarily, we do not have much debate on third reading but I do feel compelled to rise to respond to the personal attack that I received from the minister when he spoke to close debate at second reading, when I did not have an opportunity to respond. Instead of addressing the comments that I made, Mr. Speaker, he decided to unleash a personal attack on me; imputing motives it is usually called. I know the Government House Leader jumps up whenever the suggestion that somebody is imputing motives. The Minister of Municipal Affairs suggested that he never heard anything like it in this whole House, ever since he has been here, that someone should disagree with him.

When I got up and disagreed with the minister and the purpose of the bill, and the fact that I thought it was not being done to honour the memory of - to call it that was not being done to honour her memory. I thought it was, in fact, insulting to her memory. On the other hand, she might be highly amused to know that she is causing a little trouble for the hon. member and perhaps for city council after she died, to force them into a by election. She was that type of woman.

Mr. Speaker, my point that I was making was that legislation to do this is so rare as to be unnecessary. In fact, it is the kind of thing that I would not expect to be brought to the House of Assembly. I wanted to make that point, Mr. Speaker, because I thought it was an important point to make and I did not think it should expose me to the kind of personal attack that I got from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I think his comments were to the effect that the only reason I said that was because I never got elected when I ran for Mayor of St. John's. What balderdash! Does he think people are as stupid as that, as to believe that I would actually raise an objection to a piece of legislation that he brought because I ran in an election eight years ago and did not get elected? Well, he does not know me very well if he thinks that, and if he thinks anyone is going to believe that then he has another thing coming.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Dorothy Wyatt, when she ran for city council and got elected after she had died, proved that she had more respect from the public after she had died than many of the other people who ran while they were still alive. Her election proved that. Mr. Speaker, to have an election law that allowed that statement to be made by the public of the citizens of St. John's, I think is probably a good thing and not a bad thing. We do not need to come in here in this Legislature and pass legislation to make it impossible for that kind of a statement to ever be made again.

That was the point that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I did not state it as sufficiently - respectful fashion to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs but, nevertheless, that is my opinion and I am certainly entitled to it. Nobody has to agree with it. Certainly, the minister does not have to agree to it, but he does not have to turn around and attack me on a personal basis because I happen to have an opinion that he does not share.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I agree with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It is unusual to be speaking at third reading of the bill, any piece of legislation brought to the House of Assembly. But I will have to say this, again, it is just confirming for me the insult that he is making to the memory of a wonderful lady, the former Mayor of the City of St. John's, who was respected by anybody and everybody in the City of St. John's by the number of votes she got in each election that she ran in. Again, to try and insinuate that we were insulting the lady by actually giving her a tribute and respecting her by naming a piece of legislation after her, again, it just goes on that - he is just, again, continuing on with his ‘triade' I suppose, with respect to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tirade.

MR. J. BYRNE: Tirade. Again, they know what I mean on that side of the House of Assembly. The Leader of the NDP knows full well what I am saying is true. Again, that we, on this side of the House, have nothing but the most utmost respect for the former Mayor of the City of St. John's, the hon. Dorothy Wyatt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 1)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

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

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

I believe we are now on Bill 15. I do move now third reading for Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 15 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 15)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

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

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act." (Bill 12)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to why we are looking to have the Investment Contracts Act repealed. Government has a responsibility to ensure that the laws on the books are relevant and speaks to the needs of its citizens.

We, as a government, are committed to updating and streamlining legislation to ensure they adequately reflect modern trends and protection issues. Investment contracts were popular at one time because of favourable tax laws, and therefore the act governing their use was an important protection issue.

The Investment Contracts Act is no longer relevant. Investment contracts have since fallen out of favour because of changes to tax laws and no companies in this Province have issued investment contracts since 1992. If any such contracts were to be issued now they would be subject to the Securities Act, making the Investment Contracts Act redundant.

This bill simply repeals an outdated act. It does not impact on companies wishing to raise capital in the Province as they can continue to do so under the Securities Act. Only two companies have investment contracts outstanding. Together, they have about 250 investment contracts worth about $127,000. When the act is repealed, these two firms will continue to be subject to filing requirements until all contracts mature. Repealing this law will have no impact on consumers or companies wishing to raise capital in the Province. This is purely housekeeping in nature to ensure our legislation reflects modern trends.

Thank you, and I look forward for your support in repealing this law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to ask the minister a couple of questions regarding this particular bill. I would like to know, what two companies are there that require this exemption? If she could answer that - or do you want to wait until we move into committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. Now, I have a few more questions. We do not have a great deal of problem with this, but I would like to get some more information before we vote on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Chair agree that the member is finished his presentation at second reading?

Further debate?

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: I will take it under advisement to get this information for the question that you asked, later this evening.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act. (Bill 12)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the matters related to Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act.

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 Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act.

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 the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act." (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did not speak at second reading because the general principle of recognizing that the Securities Act provides for most of the securities that are being sold now by companies is recognized as being the predominant legislation, and this is in keeping with the modernization of securities legislation across the country.

I, too, share the curiosity, I suppose - it is not the proper word - but the need to know that was raised by the Member for Harbour Grace concerning the existing investment contract situation and why it is that we do have these instruments still around. Can they not be converted to instruments under the Securities Act? What are the companies that continue to operate it?

We had a situation a few years ago when we had investment companies operated. When I asked questions about who these companies were, there was only one company, Caribou Investment and Loan Company. We found out a few months later that the whole thing was up in smoke and people lost a lot of money because a type of legislation was maintained for investment and loan companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that were not properly being monitored by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, there were legal cases over it later on. I do not know what the outcome of them were, or whether they are all over, but what would happen was, there was legislation which was somewhat antiquated, that the government was looking after investment and loan companies, or trust companies, which was really not the responsibility, generally speaking, of the Province, and there was not the proper level of supervision taking place by the government for these types of corporations.

The reason that these questions are being asked - I am sure the Member for Harbour Grace can speak for himself - I am concerned, even though we are repealing an act, we are still having certain companies being applied to. Do we know what level of supervision is required? Do we know what kind of instruments we are talking about? Do we know how many investment contracts there are out there? Do we know how much money is involved, how much money is at stake? Do we know what exposure there is by the Province under these things?

I hope the minister can deal with these things in Committee because these are important questions. If the Government House Leader can address them, that will be fine. If not, perhaps we will have to wait until the minister is in a position to deal with those questions, because they are matters of public policy that could have implications for individuals who are involved in these contracts, or for others who might inherit them - I say that literally or figuratively - who they might be passed on to, or are these companies still in the business of offering investment contracts?

These are open questions, but I think they need some answers before we can wholeheartedly support this kind of legislation.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

As the Minister of Government Services explained - and she is gone just to try to get the information for her critic in terms of who are the two companies. To the point that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made, there are only two companies that have investment contracts - my understanding - standing together. The total amount owing for these two investment contracts is $127,000, as the minister explained. These companies have about 250 investment contracts worth that total sum, so very small amounts obviously. These are contracts that, as she explained, are coming to maturity at certain dates. These companies are required to continue to file. The department continues to monitor, and all of the laws of the Province with respect to their operations are certainly governed. Filing is required, monitoring is in place, so obviously, from our point of view, in putting the legislation forward, we feel fairly secure that we are not going to be in any difficulty.

That being said, I hope that has gone some ways to answer the question. I know that the minister may have some more information. If it does not satisfy the hon. gentleman, we will certainly endeavour to get as much more information as we can for you.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi mentioned, there was an incident a few years ago with Caribou Investment and Loan. The Liberal government of the day, I might add, brought in the Securities Act which rules, governs and protects the investor and the security officer from fraud and misrepresentation.

This bill here is obviously a housekeeping bill, but out of pure basic curiosity - I am sure the minister will answer when she gets to her feet - I do have a couple of more questions with that, Minister.

I would like to know the names of the two companies, just for my own knowledge. Also, the other question, I guess, that begs to be asked is: Why would these two companies require an exemption, an exception to the act? The other part of it, I suppose, to pursue it a little bit further down, is: Have there been any problems with these two investments to warrant an exception for these companies? Because the Securities Act is a pretty good act which covers the investors of this Province. I am just wondering, why these two, and those other answers, Minister?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the minister for allowing me to say a few more words before she speaks.

The Government House Leader gave us a few answers, obviously from briefing notes there, but I am hoping that the minister herself can address further points related to that. If we do have some 250 contracts, Mr. Chairman, totalling about $127,000, it seems curious that we should need to have legislation to keep these companies alive and to keep these contracts alive.

Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, to bring them all to an end or to bring them all to maturity? Are there funds backing these up that are required to be held? Are we certain that the assets and the investments are, in fact, in place, or are these contracts that have to be met by the companies making money in some other way? What kind of security is in place for them? What type of monitoring does the government actually do with these companies?

She said they are maturing at various dates. Can we get some idea of when all of these matters will be clued up? Is it going to be in one year, or two years, or ten years, or twenty years? The maturity dates for some of these things could be a long period of time. I am just wondering if she would give us an idea of what kind of longevity this exemption or exception would be, that even though we are repealing the act, or we are bringing an end to it, that it is still going to be applying to two companies.

If she could include the answers to those kinds of questions in her remarks, it would certainly go some way to give me some satisfaction that we know what we are doing here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, to address the hon. member's question, the answer to it is, there are two companies: Keltic Savings Investors in Nova Scotia, and Investors Syndicate Ltd. in Manitoba. There have been no contracts sold for the past fifteen years. They have 249 outstanding investments for a total worth of $127,000, and the last one will mature in 2028. They are still subject to reporting, but this act becomes redundant. We are now under the new Securities Act, so any other contracts sold will come under the Securities Act.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Committee report Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 12 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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 and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 12 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act, has passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by agreement. Agreement has been acknowledged.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 12 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act. (Bill 12)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

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

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

A pretty significant body of work was done today. I want to thank all members for their participation and co-operation.

With that, I do now move that the House adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 of the clock in the afternoon.

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