November 29, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 38


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome to our House, sixty five students in the public gallery from Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in the District of Conception Bay South. Their visit is part of their curriculum studies in Canadian History, Canadian Studies and Canadian Law.

They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Fred Wood and Mr. Trevor Rowe.

Welcome to the our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, I am very pleased to welcome in the Speaker's gallery Ms Darlene Neville, who is the new nominee for the Child and Youth Advocate position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that, by leave, we will now proceed to that particular process.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I have spoken to my colleagues opposite, both the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and, by leave, I want to move the following motion:

"WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act provides

"The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate shall be filled by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly."

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Motion 1, to move that the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate shall be filled by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly and thereby to appoint Ms Darlene Neville to that position on resolution of our House.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and ask this hon. House to approve Ms Darlene Neville as Child and Youth Advocate for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms Neville has served in this capacity since being appointed on August 1, 2005. During that time, she has acted in the role with the full powers and responsibility of Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more precious or valuable than the welfare and well-being of our children, which is why the Office of Child and Youth Advocate is one of such critical importance to our Province. Therefore, the selection of the Child and Youth Advocate must be taken seriously, and with considerable thought and consideration, and our government is very, very pleased with the selection of Ms Neville.

She has taken on this role with great vigour, and has clearly demonstrated a true passion for this important position. She has already been involved in extensive investigations, and taking seriously the challenges of the job. She has also recently visited Labrador in an effort to gauge the needs in that region of the Province.

As a trained social worker who has worked throughout the Province, including Placentia, St. John's and Twillingate, Ms Neville brings a multitude of skills to this office that will serve her very well. Along with her training at Memorial University, she also has a Bachelor of Laws Degree from Dalhousie University and has worked in private practice, the provincial Department of Justice, and with the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission both in St. John's and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville has practical experience, knowledge, and, most importantly, compassion. She cares deeply about children and recognizes, as we all do, that we must protect our youth as they represent the future hopes and dreams of this Province.

It is my pleasure to ask all Members of the House of Assembly to approve Ms Darlene Neville as Child and Youth Advocate for our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to second the motion put forward by the Government House Leader. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate was an initiative undertaken by a government of which I was a part and a government led by Premier Roger Grimes because we realized the importance of the position of the Child and Youth Advocate because it had not happened in the Province before. So, I would like to welcome you, Ms Neville, to that position and I hope that you will be a strong Advocate for the children of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to support the resolution before the House regarding the appointment of Ms Darlene Neville as a Child and Youth Advocate.

I have had a strong interest in the whole issue of youth advocacy and the laws, and the consequences of those laws and actions of government in this Province since before I entered this House in 1990, starting with the representation of a number of young men before the Hughes Inquiry which looked into the failures of previous governments to look after properly the people in their care and to enforce properly the laws designed to protect young people, including a lack of enforcement of the reporting requirements under the then Child Welfare Act.

It is extremely important that we have this Child Advocate. I know a number of members of this House, including the Member for St. John's West and Your Honour, were on a committee that looked into the whole issue of children's laws in the Province and recommended the Child and Youth Advocate be appointed, and I am very pleased that Ms Darlene Neville has been appointed as a Child and Youth Advocate. She has a strong background, both in law and in social work, and has the advantage - and I will say this - an advantage of being outside the system. It is very important that there be an oversight of the system from someone with the level of knowledge, training and experience of someone like Darlene Neville as the Child and Youth Advocate, and I am quite happy to endorse the resolution and her appointment.

I will say on just one, not quite sour note, but that as an Officer of this House of Assembly, I took it upon myself some months ago to write the Premier and ask that since we are engaged, in this particular case, in establishing a new representative as an Officer of the House of Assembly that we should consider a process that involves all parties in the House at some point in the process prior to an appointment being made. This is not, in any regard, a reflection on the nominee, who I have the upmost respect for, but it would give a greater level of confidence for Officers of the House to know that their appointments have been considered by all parties in the House and have their support. The normal procedure has been, not only for this particular Officer but for others, that the party House Leaders or leaders, normally, are consulted prior to an appointment being made, consulted in the manner of indicating that the appointment is about to be made in a brief period of time following that. That is a courtesy and one that is marked by tradition. But, I had suggested, and I still suggest, that the next time an appointment may be made for an Officer of the House that there be some other process whereby the leaders, or representatives of the parties, are involved in some more meaningful consultation before a choice is made.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not wish, in any way, to tarnish the occasion and the nomination of Ms Darlene Neville, who, as I say, whose appointment I support and our party supports wholeheartedly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the resolution be now approved?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The Chair reads the resolution is carried unanimously.

On motion, resolution carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has notice of the following Members' Statements: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the Town of Reidville on having been presented the Torngat Municipal Achievement Award for 2005 in Innovation in Regional Cooperation. The Town received this prestigious award, along with their first Tidy Town Award, at the recent Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities Annual Conference.

In 1999, the town experienced some financial challenges and, as a result, its level of services to residents suffered. It has since made significant strides and has blossomed into a tremendous success story.

In addition to cleaning up the town and completing several projects to enhance its appearance, the Town of Reidville has developed a remarkable Animal Control Program, for which this award was presented. The town now provides animal control services to various surrounding communities, servicing both sides of the Bay of Islands reaching as far as Cox's Cove, Rocky Harbour and Baie Verte.

Further to these animal control services, the Town of Reidville also provides backup firefighting services to the Town of Deer Lake. In recent years, Reidville initiated a Memorandum of Understanding with the Town of Deer Lake to develop a safe, regional water supply service.

The community of Reidville is a shining example of co-operation in regionalization. I ask all members to join me in recognizing the Town of Reidville, along with their staff and community volunteers, for their tremendous achievements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Tim Borlase, who was honoured with the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador on November 10. He is known for promoting and sustaining the arts and culture of Labrador for over thirty years, and connecting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with their heritage.

He has been involved with a number of educational programs involving the Aboriginal people in Labrador communities, and he was a founder and organizer of the Labrador Creative Arts Festival. Furthermore, he has been involved in the development and the delivery of the Melville Music Festival, the Heritage Fair, the North Coast Sports Meet, and the High School Drama Festival. In addition, he was the founder and director of the Mokami Players and oversees the Happy Valley-Goose Bay Arts Council.

Tim Borlase has been known for his involvement with the Association of Cultural Industries, where he became the author of the Cultural Policy for this Province. In addition, he was a program specialist with the Labrador School Board and has created and directed radio programs for CBC. He is perhaps best known for his work editing and compiling Songs of Labrador which includes songs, personal stories, photographs and sketches.

Other awards that he has received include the Happy Valley-Goose Bay Arts Achievement Award, Best Director and Best Production Awards for his involvement with the Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival, and the Lifetime Achievement in the Arts Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the achievement and expressing congratulations to Dr. Tim Borlase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Ocean Quest Charters of Conception Bay South, which was awarded the prestigious 2005 Parks Canada Sustainable Tourism Award on October 25, 2005, during Canada's Tourism Leadership Summit in Quebec City. The other two finalists were from New Brunswick and British Columbia.

The Parks Canada Sustainable Development Award reflects the three pillars of sustainable tourism development: economic viability, environmental sustainability and cultural appropriateness. Mr. Rick Stanley and his team of professionals have contributed to the long-term viability and sustainability of the Newfoundland and Labrador tourism industry.

Ocean Quest Charters offers a variety of products to residents and visitors, including scuba charters, dive packages, wreck site dives, scuba training and adventure charters. They are passionate about conservation and protection of our natural resources, the protection of our environment and the preservation of our cultural heritage. Their motto, Mr. Speaker, is: take pictures, leave bubbles.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mr. Rick Stanley and his team on receiving this very prestigious national award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Ms Erin Milley, Grand Falls-Windsor's Youth of the Year for 2004.

Ms Milley, a recent Grade 12 student at Exploits Valley High School Maple Division has devoted much of her time to extracurricular activities, volunteerism and church involvement.

Mr. Speaker, Erin's involvement with music and drama as a member of the Bel Canto Singers, high school concert band, EVH Chorale Group, EVH Maple Big Band, Central Newfoundland Kiwanis Music Festival participant, Broken Hearts, Broken Homes actor, winner of the Arts and Culture Centre Battle of the Bands, and School-stock participant demonstrates her outstanding qualities. She also studies piano and voice.

Erin is also active in her church. She is a Sunday School teacher and a church nursery worker. Other activities include being involved with STUFF children's program as a teacher, Tutoring for Tuition, a Circle Square Ranch volunteer, participating in Encounters Canada and student leadership.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Erin Milley is committed to her community and very deserving of this prestigious award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Ms Erin Milley, Grand Falls-Windsor's Youth of the Year 2004.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Random East Fire Department on their tenth anniversary.

Ten short years ago, the communities of Lower Lance Cover, Britannia, Petley, Hickman's Harbour and Robinson Bight came together to establish a new fire department and, within one year of that, those communities had raised some $20,000 to go towards the purchase of a new fire truck that costs some $100,000. Mr. Speaker, within six short years of that, they had the remaining amount raised and paid for.

This year, on their tenth anniversary, I had the honour of participating with them as they cut the ribbon to open a new fire hall that they had just recently built.

Mr. Speaker, I have always been impressed with the dedication and commitment of volunteer fire departments in my district, and I am always mindful of the tremendous sacrifice they make. In fact, that evening, as we all sat around the community centre in Britannia to celebrate their tenth anniversary, in the middle of the dinner a fire call came in, and it was almost as if in unison all of the blue shirts in the hall jumped simultaneously and ran out of the building to respond to that fire call.

As we sat there enjoying the rest of our meal, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but think how many Christmas Days, how many anniversaries, how many children's birthdays, have those same people throughout that community and other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador jumped from their meals and special celebrations to respond to fires in their community, to protect the other residents of those communities.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is shining example of how communities come together and, through hard work and dedication and commitment to their communities, are able to make successful, vibrant places for people to live.

I ask all members of this House to join me today in congratulating this fire department on ten successful years of community service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate students who attend St. Joseph's Academy in Lamaline.

St. Joseph's Academy won a national award recognizing its quality physical education program. The Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance presented the school with the National Platinum Recognition Award for Quality Daily Physical Education.

St. Joseph's Academy was one of 800 out of over 15,000 schools across Canada that qualified for the award. St. Joseph's met the requirements for the award by introducing a house system to their students which focused on participation, hosting a fundraiser for the Terry Fox Cancer Centre and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, and hosting several regional tournaments. The school has an intramural program that involves all students from kindergarten to Level III.

Sandy Cooper, the physical education teacher at St. Joseph's Academy, was nominated by the school and selected the Eastern District Teacher of the Year for the 2004-2005 school year. That award is sponsored by the Physical Education Special Interest Council.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the students of St. Joseph's Academy on their award, and also Sandy Cooper on receiving the 2004-2005 Teacher of the Year Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to advise members that this Thursday, December 1, 2005, marks the effective date of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and to congratulate the Labrador Inuit on this momentous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, many changes will be triggered by the effective date. It will have an impact on the people in businesses throughout Labrador, and I encourage anyone who might be impacted by this agreement to become informed on what it will mean for them. Most importantly, the Nunatsiavut Government will officially come into being, representing a new governing structure for the Labrador Inuit.

The Labrador Inuit have waited almost thirty years for this day, and it will mark a new era in Labrador. Having this land claims agreement come into effect will give the Labrador Inuit more control over their own affairs. The agreement sets out a new regime for land ownership, resource sharing and self-government, including Inuit ownership of 15,800 square kilometres of land to be known as Labrador Inuit Lands. This is where the Nunatsiavut Government will exercise most of its power.

Mr. Speaker, the date will also mark the formal establishment of the Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve of Canada under the Canada National Parks Act. This park consists of approximately 9,600 square kilometres.

Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government will also have jurisdiction over language and culture and will enable the Inuit to preserve and promote Inuktitut as the language of everyday life and to develop an education system in which Inuktitut and English are languages of instruction. This will provide the Inuit with further opportunities to prosper and grow.

The Labrador Inuit Association, as well as the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador have worked very diligently and co-operatively to make this day a reality. Mr. Speaker, in May, 2004, the Labrador Inuit voted on this agreement and support was both overwhelming and definitive. Approximately 85 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls, and 76 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot in favour of the agreement.

A day of ceremony is planned for December 1 in Nain, and I look forward to attending it along with the Premier, Ministers Shelley and Osborne, Opposition members, and Aboriginal and community leaders.

Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2005, the face of Labrador and the Province will be forever changed. I ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in congratulating the Labrador Inuit as they celebrate this momentous day in their history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a tremendous day. Thirty years is a long time to be waiting. There are many people who need to be thanked and I am sure that the federal negotiating team and the Labrador Inuit Association members will thank their people. I want to go back to Premier Tobin who offered fast-track negotiations. I want to thank Premier Roger Grimes, who did so much to bring this to a final agreement, and certainly to the Premier of the day and to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for carrying on and making sure that this deal became a reality.

Mr. Speaker, Nunatsiavut means our beautiful land. I say to the minister, he said this December 1 will change the face of Labrador forever, and for me, as an Aboriginal, I hope it will be changed for much better because if there are people in this Province who deserve a better way of life, it is the Aboriginal people.

Mr. Speaker, God bless the people of Nunatsiavut and God bless our beautiful land.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, and I, too, would like to congratulate all parties who were involved in this process to make this day become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, the Inuit on the North Coast, anybody who has been to the North Coast and had the opportunity to travel there, know full-well that the North Coast needs a lot of improvements in many areas. Hopefully, this is a first step in improving the lives of the people who live there.

Mr. Speaker, many people in the world today, particularly minority groups, face being wiped out as a culture and losing their identity. This process that will start here, hopefully, will preserve the culture and identity of the Inuit people for centuries to come and it will give them control over their language, which is pretty important to the Inuit people and to all cultures -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. COLLINS: - and it is important to protect the language and the culture and, hopefully, this new initiative and the new government will make that a reality, as I said, for many centuries to come.

Again, I congratulate all people and I look forward to being there on Thursday as well with the Premier, the minister, the Member for Torngat, the Leader of the NDP and others who will be travelling to Nain on that day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise to draw attention of Members of the House of Assembly of a very important issue that is facing the agricultural industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, one that is facing the industry across the country.

While we have made significant progress in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years to enhance, grow and diversify the agriculture industry - not the least of which was the five-year $17.5 million land consolidation and development program we announce in this year's budget to increase the availability of suitable farm land - there remain issues that need to be addressed.

Today, one of the most critical issues is the current round of World Trade Organization negotiations and the potential impact that it could have on this Province's supply-managed commodities; namely, egg, chicken and dairy. This current round could culminate at negotiations in Hong Kong in mid-December.

So everyone is aware, the supply-managed commodities in this Province represent close to 80 per cent of this Province's agriculture, and these sectors continue to grow. For example, in 2004, the egg industry grew close to 14 per cent to $13.3 million; the chicken industry grew nearly 8 per cent to $23.3 million; and, the dairy industry grew nearly 4.5 per cent to $29.5 million. And just last month, I was quite pleased to welcome two new entrants on behalf of the government to the dairy industry.

Obviously, these industries are vital to the agricultural industry in this Province - most of which occurs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, that is why our government takes such a firm position on the issue. And the position is this: there should not be any weakening of the country's import controls that would have a negative impact on our supply-managed system. The federal government has to ensure that current import quota levels are not increased and over-quota tariffs are maintained at existing levels. Our government will continue to drive the message home to the federal government, as well to other provincial governments the importance of maintaining our right to keep this orderly marketing system. It is working for producers, it is working for consumers, and it does not need fixing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the egg, chicken and dairy organizations in this Province who are lobbying alongside this government, and other provincial governments as well, to see that the integrity of our supply-managed system is not tinkered with and that these industries be allowed the opportunity to continue to grow in this Province and elsewhere.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate receiving an advance copy of the minister's statement.

God only knows we need as much protection as we can when it comes to certain industries, including the egg, the chicken and the dairy industries. I hope we fare much better in our negotiations at the United Nations in regard to these industries than we fared at NAFO when it comes to some of our fishing interests in the past. I also notice the timing of these things is in mid-December, and I am not sure if it is just United Nations officials who will be doing the negotiating or if high level government personnel were expected to be there. I would think the advent this morning of the election federally might be somewhat disruptive and not in our best interests if we are not represented at this most important occasion by our federal people. Again, we wish them well. We are only a small voice in the wilderness sometimes when it comes to protecting our interests, but needless to say we still need to be a voice regardless of how small we might be in terms of the world size. This is important to us and we certainly need to be speaking out and encouraging people to protect our interests at the federal level.

I am not sure if this is on the Premier's wish list or not, when it comes to federal protections, but whatever can be included on that list certainly now is the time to do it.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that the minister has taken the time to make this statement in the House today. It is extremely important that we understand that international organizations, such as the WTO which used to be called GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, can have a significant affect on what happens in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador and in many countries throughout the world. This whole notion of free trade sounds good on the surface, Mr. Speaker, but what started out as a reduction in tariffs has turned, through the WTO, as being a threat on sovereignty of certain countries and nations, such as Canada, when we try to have an orderly marketing system such as an egg marketing board or a dairy marketing board that allows us to try to be self-sufficient in some of these products.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: I was going to ask at the beginning just to avoid this interruption, but I know the Speaker is constrained by the rules and perhaps we should have a look at them.

The notion of protecting certain self-sufficiency that we have through these marketing boards was an issue going back to the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, as part of NAFTA, trying to ensure that the marketing systems that we have providing for agricultural activity in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador is important for economic and production reasons. It is also important, Mr. Speaker, for self-sufficiency reasons. Most of the food that we consume in Newfoundland and Labrador today comes here by truck from some other place. The rules that are in effect here often prevent local initiative to take place, so it is important that we protect these industries.

It seems that despite the big promoters of free trade, such as the United States, when it is something that they want to protect, they are big enough and strong enough to do damage to a country like Canada, such as they have been doing under softwood lumber.

The things that we have, that we need to protect, we need to make sure that as strong an effort as possible is done to ensure that our ability to make rules about our own production in these matters continues to exist, and I support the minister and others in their efforts to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning the Governor General of Canada dropped the writ for a federal election to be held on January 23, 2006.

As we all know, a federal election represents an ideal opportunity to put forward to federal parties the issues of importance to Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government did this during the last federal election just seventeen short months ago, and we had great success with this approach.

Indeed, we were able to garner from all leaders a commitment that Newfoundland and Labrador would become principal beneficiaries of our offshore revenues; and, after several months of negotiations, we achieved the new milestone Atlantic Accord agreement.

Given the proven effectiveness of this approach, I have again submitted a letter outlining issues of importance to this Province, to the leaders of the federal Conservative, Liberal and NDP parties.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many matters of critical importance to the people of this Province and my letter includes those that we feel most represent issues which require the positions of these parties.

This letter puts forward several questions to the leaders covering the key areas of: the fishery; energy; federal presence in the Province; equalization; Labrador specific issues; Marine Atlantic; and economic development and infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the intent of this letter is to put forward issues that are unique to our Province. Through the Council of Atlantic Premiers and the Council of the Federation, I join with my fellow premiers in promoting pan-Canadian issues with the federal parties such as health care and education, among others.

We expect responses from all leaders, and we would also like to hear from each and every candidate on their individual positions on each of the questions that we have posed.

We have attempted to include as many topics as possible; however, if there are other issues or if something extraordinary comes up during the course of the election, then we would expect to hear the positions of the parties on those items are well.

The responses will serve to assist Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in making an informed decision as election day approaches.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the letter here in the House of Assembly. I wish all candidates the very best in the election which started in earnest this morning, and I look forward to hearing from candidates and their leaders on issues of importance to our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for his statement, the advance copy of his statement, but we have not seen the letter so we do not know yet what the Premier has asked for in his wish list from the federal government.

I do understand, though, in listening to the Premier and some of his Cabinet ministers in the last few days, that there are a couple of issues there that we have been talking about for a long period of time. I find it a little strange that it is only now, in the middle of an election, or at the beginning of an election, that the Premier has brought these forward.

One is custodial management. I hope that one is on the list. We fought for it when we were a government for a number of years. I know that when the Premier was in Opposition he started an all-party committee - that he forgot to invite our party to, I might add - and then quickly dissolved it once he became Premier. In the past two years, when questioned on custodial management in this House of Assembly, his Minister of Fisheries, and indeed the Premier, have praised the Prime Minister on the move that he has made with regard to custodial management. We do not think they moved far enough, and I am just wondering why he is moving that issue forward right now.

Another issue that seems to be on the list - maybe I am wrong; again, I can only go on what has been in the media the last few days - is that of early retirement in our fishing industry. We have asked time and time again of the Minister of Fisheries, has he put forward a formal request to the federal minister pertaining to early retirement, and talked about what portion we would be willing to pay, or what percentage? As far as I know, there has never been - in our discussions with the federal government - a formal request by this Province to the federal government for early retirement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for concluding comments.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, you talk about a federal presence here in the Province; we support it 100 per cent. We do not think that the federal government should be cutting jobs and services in the Province, but we find it a little hypocritical that this is coming from a Premier and a government that has slashed services to many parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by closing HRE offices, courthouses, highway depots and hospital beds.

I say to the Premier, as I said to the Justice Minister last week, when you are asking for something from the federal government, you should look in the mirror first and see what you are doing to parts of this Province.

Again, we support a lot of these issues. We just think that the timing for the Premier to bring it forward is a little strange.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I think this is actually one of the Premier's better ideas. In the last election -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - writing a letter to the leaders in the forthcoming general election last time was a very good idea. It gave the NDP, for example, an opportunity, for probably the first time, to have a Newfoundland and Labrador manifesto showing their support for issues that are important to Newfoundland and Labrador with the clearest and most comprehensive program on offshore energy and revenues to the point that the Premier, himself, agreed that it was the best position and the closest to that of our Province and most important to our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the list yet, but we can certainly guess at some of the items that we all agree are important to Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can count on the NDP to respond to these issues in a most positive way but also talk about the issues that we believe are also important across the country, such as a greater involvement of an affordable housing support for post-secondary education and better programs for post-secondary students, financing, and all the other good things that will come with more New Democrats in the House of Assembly. So, we are looking forward to the federal election and we are looking forward to our party's response to the Premier's letter and to hear what other parties also have to say in their campaign to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period - I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period the Minister of Health and Community Services stated that a decision to close beds at the Fogo Island hospital was a decision made by the Central Health Care Board. Stated in Hansard, "...this government supports the decision of the board because the board knows best what the situation is on Fogo Island...".

I ask the minister: Was there any correspondence from the Central Health Care Board indicating that ten beds should be closed on Fogo Island, and are you willing to table that documentation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, from time to time decisions are made by our various health care authorities, and this is one of them.

With respect to the issue on Fogo Island, there is currently a needs assessment being done. As I indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this government will monitor the needs assessment that is being done. In short order, there will be recommendations and findings and we will work closely with Central Health with a view to whatever changes are required, whatever additions may be required, whatever those findings are, we will support those findings and work in the best interest of not only Fogo Islanders, Mr. Speaker, but, indeed, any residents who are covenant of the jurisdiction of Central Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, there was a needs assessment done before we - when we were in government - decided to build that hospital. I take it, from your lack of an answer, that you do not have any written correspondence from the health care board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, last night I contacted a member of the Central Health Care Board. This individual told me that board members, along with the CEO and the chair of the board, found out about this decision when it was reported in the media following a press conference by the Premier after he spoke with the Chamber of Commerce in Gander.

I ask the minister: Why are you now blaming this poorly thought out decision on the health care board when it was obviously a decision by your government, or at least by your Premier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I will top that, Mr. Speaker. Last night I spoke personally with the new CEO of Central Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I will equal that comment by saying I spoke personally with the Chair of Central Health.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat. As we speak today there is a needs assessment being done with respect to the health care needs of the residents - of your constituents, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, your constituents. There is a needs assessment being done as we speak today, and when that is finalized we will work with Central Health with a view to ensuring that Fogo Islanders needs are met, and as I just mentioned, not only them but, indeed, others under that jurisdiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Health, you may have spoken to the new CEO or the new Chair of the Central Health Care Board, but, I say to the minister, you did not speak to the CEO and the chair who were in the position at the time that the Premier made his comment in Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: They did not, as you know, send any recommendation to you to close ten beds on Fogo Island, and if they did, table it in front of the House, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, during a by-election this past summer in the District of Exploits, the Premier and the Minister of Education overruled a decision by the Central School Board to close a school in Bishop's Fall.

I ask the minister: Why don't you do the right thing, stand here today, reverse this decision, and ensure that the people on Fogo Island have good access to quality health care services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Fogo Island are as important as, and deserve the same equality and fairness as, any other citizen of this Province. There is a need assessment being done. I have just said that. I have said it several times. We will await the outcome and we will work hand in hand with Central Health to ensure and their needs are addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say there was a need assessment done five years ago. There was no need assessment done when the Premier announced that he wasn't opening ten beds, and since that time senior citizens have been forced to leave the Island to die. There are patients out there who are waiting in the hallway in stretchers when there are ten beds in that facility that your government refused to open!

Now, Mr. Speaker, during an election campaign the Premier told town councils on Fogo Island that their new hospital with twenty beds would open. Instead, after being elected, this government decided to close ten beds, cutting the capacity of the hospital in half.

I ask the Premier: Were you serious about your commitment, or was this just another empty campaign promise to get votes during an election?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What we do during an election is never to get votes. That is a practice, Mr. Speaker, that has been followed by the Liberal Party, by members of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - Liberal Party, in order to try and buy votes. That is obviously what is going on at the federal level right now. They are spending billions of dollars in order to buy favour from the people of Canada. That is not the way this government operates. That is not the way this party operates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, reference was also made to the decision in Exploits. To deal with the situation in Exploits, that decision was based on the facts. There was a need, and that is why that board decision was changed. There was another similar situation in that same district where representation was made to us and a decision was made by the school board and that decision was not reversed, so we are fair to the people and we act in an appropriate manner. Now, that is the answer.

With regard to the situation in Fogo, the Leader of the Opposition knows that myself and the Minister of Health yesterday discussed this matter, as we have discussed this matter before on several occasions. I have indicated to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair yesterday afternoon, I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, that this is a matter we would take under consideration. It would be discussed with the boards, and the boards would reach a decision after the needs assessment is done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You are trying to take advantage of an indication by us that we are going to have a hard look at this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, he used boards for his convenience. When they agree with what he wants to do, he applauds them. When they disagree, he overrules them.

Mr. Speaker, I have raised the issue of the ten bed closure on Fogo Island many, many, many times since 2003. We have never received a response from this Premier. Numerous individuals from Fogo Island have made representation on behalf of the residents here to the government and to Open Line shows in the media in the Province. This government did not act.

I ask the Premier: Premier, will you give a commitment today that the remaining ten beds that your government closed on Fogo Island will open before the end of this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member in person yesterday, and to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, this is in the hands of the Minister of Health. This matter is being looked at, it is being very seriously looked at, and it will certainly be considered, but will be done according to the normal processes after a needs assessment has been done, and it will follow proper channels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is certainly a matter that is under very serious consideration by our government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister and the Premier, there is no need to do an assessment when you have to move seniors from Corner Brook out to Port aux Basques, I can guarantee you that.

I have spoken to people who are personally affected by the policy of moving seniors away from their families to another town. Recommendation 172 of the Hay Report: The husband was called by his wife early in the morning, telling him that she was being moved that morning to Port aux Basques. He rushed to the hospital to try to get the details. He left 2:00 p.m. to go home to have his lunch. His wife called and said, they are taking me. He rushed into the hospital and his wife was gone by ambulance to Port aux Basques. The procedure followed is cruel and inhumane and no way to treat our seniors.

Will the minister put a stop to this cruel and inhumane policy being carried out right now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the first available bed policy which is now being implemented by Western Health, as I indicated yesterday, is an unfortunate one but, unfortunately, is a necessary one. This is why: because it is essential, obviously, that those individuals, those residents of the West Coast, who are residents of the City of Corner Brook or that region, who require critical care, acute care or surgery, it is essential that a bed be available for them so the appropriate medical services can be delivered.

We are not delighted with the fact that we have seniors who temporarily, I might add - temporarily, this is not a permanent move, as is being suggested, Mr. Speaker, in a press release that was released by the hon. member yesterday - this is a temporary move that is done in response to a pressure situation that Western Health now finds itself in, and it is dealing with these somewhat difficult circumstances to the best of its ability. Mr. Speaker, as a government, we support their decision because it is done in the interest of the residents of that region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, some of those moves are going to be up to two and three years; some may never make it back.

It is just strange, three-and-a-half years ago when this was recommended by the board, when the Premier was in Opposition, he was adamant that this should not happen to seniors. I guess a little walk away across the House changes people's views.

The minister has stated many times that there are no beds available at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital. This is absolutely false. There are many beds at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital which have been shut down. The hospital board had to close down beds through lack of funding from this government. The Minister of Justice and the Member for Humber East has told people to give him until Friday to see what he can do with this policy change.

I ask the Minister of Health: Would you provide the board with enough funds to open up a wing of this hospital to stop this callous act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member, the information that he has presented in this House is inaccurate. In fact, the last time there were beds closed at Western Memorial was eighteen beds, approximately, Mr. Speaker, some ten years ago. That is the reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this situation is being clouded by inaccuracies; and I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the news release that was issued yesterday by the hon. member. He says, for example, "Government tried to hide this issue and sneak through its implementation...".

Mr. Speaker, there was nothing hidden, there was nothing secret, there was nothing sinister, there was nothing clandestine, about what is taking place here. In fact, last week, Western Health issued publicly a press release notifying the public exactly of its intentions.

Mr. Speaker, these decisions, as difficult as they are on certain individuals and on certain families, are being done for the right reasons: to protect the health care needs of those who live in the region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, when there are families who go up to the Western Memorial Regional Hospital and ask the staff and ask the management, can we wait a couple of days until we make arrangements to try to bring our parents home, and they say, no, it has to be done at that minute, it is rushed, Sir, I guarantee you it is rushed. Believe me. I can give you people's names who that happened to. I will guarantee you, Minister, you are absolutely wrong on that. Absolutely!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I have spoken to a son whose parent is moving. His father is eighty-nine years old and his wife is moving to Port aux Basques. They have been married for over seventy years and now they are being separated. The Premier was adamant against this policy when he was in Opposition. Adamant! Last year your government recognized the Year of the Senior and their contribution to society. You have $2 billion in the bank, enough funds to cover the cost. You have the beds available to place these seniors.

The question is: Do you have the sensitivity and the political will to keep seniors near their spouses and families during the last years of their lives?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he has no (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, fails to recognize the health issues here. Take for example if there was a motor vehicle accident, an emergency situation, and if an individual required immediate medical attention, what happens if there is no bed? This decision is clearly being made in the health care interests of those individuals who live in that region.

To repeat the point made by the hon. Premier yesterday, we have recently broken ground with respect to a new long-term care facility -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - in the City of Corner Brook that will cater to the needs of almost 300 residents of the West Coast community. Mr. Speaker, this decision, I acknowledge and I repeat, is inconvenient, it is difficult for those families who are impacted, but again I repeat, it is in the health care interests of those people who may well need, and in fact do need, those particular services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the fact the Premier has lumped the issue surrounding the fishery in this Province in with a dozen other things on his wish list just goes to show how little importance he attaches to the fishery and how little he understands about the importance of the fishery to this Province, particularly to rural communities.

Premier, there are many people throughout this Province who have worked a lifetime in the fishery industry who have been looking to this government to put in place an early retirement program with the support of the federal government. There is no record in Ottawa of a proposal from this government requesting the federal government partnering such a program.

Premier, why has your government not put such a proposal in writing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the difference. We have made our intentions known publicly at federal provincial meetings. The former Minister of Fisheries and the current Minister of Fisheries, this matter has been discussed in detail at the Cabinet level and the importance of it is indicated because it is item number one in my letter to the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: "Does your party support providing an early retirement program on a 70/30 Federal/Provincial cost-shared basis for workers impacted by changes to the industry?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that not only asked the question but it gives the answer as well because we, as a government, are prepared to put up our 30 per cent and we want them to put up their 70 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier has done is too little too late. You dropped the ball on this file, Premier. You dropped the ball and now you expect the federal government to pick it up and run with it.

On the eve of an election you come to the table asking for the federal government to partner or for some of the federal Liberals to commit. Premier, how do you expect them to commit to a proposal when they do not even have the details to make an informed decision? Why won't you put an actual proposal in writing so at least you would have some credibility when you go to hold their feet to the fire?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, credibility of putting the federal government's feet to the fire is not something I am worried about, believe me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the hon. member did not read the letter and she should also go down through the other items. We have listed fisheries as the number one item in our letter to the federal MP. Second item -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Second item: "Does your party support this request for a Northern Shrimp allocation..." for people of Harbour Breton and the people of Conne River in order to save that community? Item number two!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Item number three, which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition: "Will your party support imposing custodial management on the continental shelf immediately outside Canada's 200-mile limit...?" Item number three!

Item number four -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members to keep their responses to a minute. In that connection, the Chair recognizes the Opposition.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is, that this government has to be dragged kicking and screaming in order to get anything to focus on the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the issue of custodial management. Here was a prime opportunity for this Premier to single out one issue of significance to this Province, and that is custodial management. Mr. Premier, you failed the people of the Province again. Certainly heavens you know, that if we could secure custodial management it would have just as big an impact as securing the Atlantic Accord. Why haven't you singled out custodial management as that one significant issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, so what would the Member for Grand Bank-Fortune have me do? Does she want me to drop item number one, which is the early retirement program, and single out custodial management? Does she want me to drop item number two, to try and save the people of Harbour Breton and to give a shrimp quota to the people of Conne River? Is that what you would like me to do, and single out custodial management? Well, we have custodial management here.

I will add, Mr. Speaker, item number four: "Does your party support the province's view that recovery of cod stocks is best achieved through the implementation of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Cod Recovery Strategy...?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? This letter went out after lunch yesterday. We already have an answer to that one because Geoff Regan came out shortly afterwards and said that it would not happen. So, we have an answer to that one already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, item number five: "Does your party support the development of a comprehensive Aquaculture Framework Agreement...?"

Those are the questions we asked on the fisheries, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier can stand up and rant and rave all he wants, but the point of the matter is that he is playing politics with these very significant issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: These are issues you should have dealt with months ago, Mr. Premier, not third year into your mandate.

I am asking you again: Why haven't you singled out custodial management? Is it because your views are not the views of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on this most vital issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a letter that we sent seventeen months ago to the leaders of custodial management was a primary issue. In the letter that we sent twenty-four hours ago, custodial management is a huge issue. Now, obviously, the member had her questions prepared before she got the letter. She did not read the letter. She did not decide to reconsider her questions before she asked them. So, she is caught out because she had her questions prepared before and she has nothing else to ask us. That is the truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker. She also has a very short memory about what this government did for the people in her community, the people in Fortune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: She also has a very short memory about what this government did for the people in her community, the people in Fortune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked and the Premier is making a response. I recognize the Premier, if he has any concluding comments to make.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Alexi Kolosovs has spent thirty-two weeks in the West End Baptist Church. Alexi Portnoy and his family have been in the church in Marystown for the past seven weeks and I, at least - and I am pretty sure the Premier has, and others - have received in excess of 1,100 e-mails in support of the Portnoy family. They and about a dozen other families in this Province are subject to deportation orders, Mr. Speaker, and I want to ask the Premier whether he and his government are prepared to act, to intervene, to try and support these families to remain in the Province and continue to be contributing members of our society?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has caught the attention of everyone in the Province and has, I think, solidified the viewpoint of people within the Province. I can only endeavour, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, to, I guess, glean and get any information that department has been involved with and to report back to the House.

Having said that, I think it is important for all of us to recognize, from the government's point of view anyway, not unlike anyone else in the Province, that this is an issue that has captured the attention of the people in the Province and one that we feel, I guess, in line with to a large degree with the people who are in Marystown right now seeking a way and a mechanism by which they can stay.

I can only hope that the interventions by the MP, Mr. Matthews, to the Deputy Prime Minister, Anne McLellan, who has given a commitment to review the situation will bear some fruit.

Having said that, I do endeavour, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to report back to the House with an answer to his question, given the fact that the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs is noticeably absent today for he is on government business elsewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So far, all that has happened is the Minister Responsible for Immigration in the Province has said that she would bring the matter to the attention of the Government of Canada.

In the last couple of weeks - three people were deported in the last week or so. There were five skilled workers deported in August and, as I indicated, some other dozen families are subject to deportation, not just the Portnoys. Some of these individuals are skilled individuals who are supporting and making possible economic activity in woodworking and clothing manufacturing, and are important to those businesses.

I know the government is considering an immigration policy. Will the Premier and his government step up this activity and show some intervention now so that we can possibly save these people from deportation and - as the discussion paper says how immigration will support a growing economy - start with trying to help these families from being deported so they can be part of this growing economy in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily disagree with the statements put forward by the Leader of the NDP, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but I do not necessarily agree either, and here is why.

The member, as a member of the legal profession, understands that with federal immigration there is a process that is involved, and that each case is judged upon its individual merit. So, in order for any member in this House, none of us, I believe - I certainly don't - I cannot speak for everyone, but generally speaking I cannot speak to the details of the cases that you put forward.

You would also know, as a member of the legal community and legal profession, that as each case is judged on its merit there is no blanket policy. There may be exceptions and individual peculiarities that deal with the cases that you brought forward. So, on behalf of the government, we are in no position to speak to the individual merits or demerits of the cases that you have brought forward.

Having said that, on the larger sort of issue of pan-Canadian immigration policy, government generally supports any policy that would see workers be involved to bring trades and skills to the Province that necessarily do not exist today. What I can say to the member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocation for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has expired.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was a sad day for youth in Labrador yesterday. Yesterday, the Premier told the children of Labrador that they are not as important to him as children on the Island portion of this Province. He told them that, because they live in Labrador, the government will not build education facilities like they are building in Corner Brook and St. John's because they are waiting for funding from the federal government.

Premier, why have you used the youth of Labrador as pawns in a political game with the federal government? Would you use the children on the Island the same way? Better still, would you use your own children in this manner?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are times when I have the utmost respect for the hon. member opposite, and there are times like today when I do not. I am deeply disappointed. He knows the difference. He knows the commitment that I have to the children of Labrador. He knows the commitment that this government has to the people of Labrador, particularly the youth. He knows the commitment that we have to Aboriginal youth in particular.

Yesterday, he actually stood on his feet and talked about ministers and the Premier not going to Labrador and not meeting with people on an individual basis. He was on the same plane I was on last year when myself and other ministers, with you, went up and visited communities as your request, and sat down and talked to people and listened to people, and they had a huge impact on me, I have to tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He was on Open Line and endorsed our actions, Mr. Speaker.

We will deal with this problem and we will deal with in a proper manner. I used the term favourable consideration yesterday, which gave you a good indication of where we are going on this, and you get up and do that today. Shame on you, Sir!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can attack me all he wants, but I will stand up for the children of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the member. The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Premier, if you are serious when you say you will treat the youth in Labrador the same as you do on the Island portion of this Province, then do so by giving them the Christmas present they deserve.

In your own words today, Premier, the health and well being of our youth are very important. Will you back up these words today and announce when we are going to get a tender call for the much needed and much deserved auditorium for the youth in Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this afternoon we have seen the spectacle of cheap, dirty politics to the lowest possible degree. In a conversation yesterday with hon. members opposite, I indicated that we were giving consideration to points that were raised yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition gets up today and grandstands on behalf of the people of Fogo because we are reconsidering this. What does the hon. Member for Torngat do? Exactly the same thing. Not only does he try and get political credit for this, he tries then to heap blame for Aboriginal children and Aboriginal youth, for lack of compassion, on the shoulders of this government. Shame on you, Sir! I have nothing else to say to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: You can't take it. You can't take it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be ashamed of yourself.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible). That is pretty low. That is pretty low!

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

I am asking members for their co-operation so we can continue with the proceeding of the House.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees. Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am tabling the Public Accounts of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, as required by the Financial Administration Act.

Again, this year they have received a clean, unqualified audit opinion by the Auditor General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to hon. members, if I cannot get the attention of the members, the Chair will recess the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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 to consider certain resolutions relating to the advancing or guarantee of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 62)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

On behalf of the Minister of Education, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 63)

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to move the following Private Member's Motion:

WHEREAS Labradorians must be the primary beneficiaries of any development of the hydro resource on the Lower Churchill River; and

WHEREAS the Premier promised during the 2003 election campaign, "We will not develop the Lower Churchill unless the primary beneficiaries are Labradorians. You have my assurance on that"; and

WHEREAS the government party promised during the 2003 election campaign that, "a Progressive Conservative government will make use of the hydroelectric potential of the Lower Churchill to promote industrial development and meet domestic energy demand in Labrador"; and

WHEREAS Labrador communities must have electrical power which is affordable and reliable to sustain and grow the local economy; and

WHEREAS Labradorians expect a heritage fund will be established to ensure future investment into Labrador and its people; and

WHEREAS there must be respect and inclusion for all of Labrador's Aboriginal peoples, the Innu Nation, the Metis Nation and the Inuit must be consulted and engaged in meaningful discussions on the development; and

WHEREAS local business procurement and local employment opportunities must be a fundamental part of any plan to develop the project, a Labrador First Policy must be adopted; and

WHEREAS environmental concerns must be considered and addressed through environmental assessments, Labradorians must be provided with intervener status;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government to ensure that Labrador receive the maximum benefits of the development of the Lower Churchill Power Project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a deal on the Lower Churchill not be concluded unless the electrical needs of Labrador are met and a Labrador development fund is established to ensure that Labradorians are the primary beneficiaries of the export of their hydro electricity resource.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 61)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The Chair would ask leave of the House to table a document just delivered to me. It is from the Auditor General and it is the report On the Audit of the Financial Statements of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador For the Year Ended 31 March 2005.

Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of this Province concerning the right to hunt on Sunday. Mr. Speaker, I presented this petition a couple of weeks ago and to just explain a bit more what the people who signed this petition expect government to do, I will elaborate further on that and the reasons for it.

Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, there are not too many things today in society that people cannot do on Sunday; from Sunday shopping to opening Liquor stores recently on Sunday, to a host of other things. Hunting is one of the activities that is pursued by a large number of people in this Province and they feel that it is wrong for them not to be able have the opportunity to hunt on a Sunday.

Now, Mr. Speaker, most of the people in this Province who hunt are not close to populated areas. They are far back in the woods. I know in the case of Labrador, you are hundreds of miles in from the closest community, where the only people near you are hunters as well. When you leave to return home on a Sunday, if you did not get your animals or have a successful hunt on Saturday, even though you are a hundred miles from the closest place, you are still not allowed to hunt an animal because of the fact that it is a Sunday. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

I understand also, Mr. Speaker, there are some people out there who have concerns over this. You often hear the argument about berry pickers in the woods during September month. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister, in implementing Sunday hunting, can strike an agreement that would accommodate most people in the Province that would be reasonable and acceptable to a large segment of the population.

There may be such things, for example, as a delay when Sunday hunting will start in certain areas of the Province because of people's other outdoor activities in the Province, such as berry picking and things of that nature.

I implore the minister, on behalf of the people who signed this petition, to really take this under consideration, give it some though, and implement a process whereby hunters of the Province can be accommodated to hunt on Sunday, as well as other people being able to pursue their activities on Sunday without any fear as well.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, to look at this issue, to change the regulation, and to allow people the right to be able to hunt on Sundays.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents. The petition reads:

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

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

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

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

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of a number of residents in my district today.

Certainly, last week we heard the new Minister of Transportation and Works put forward the early announcement of a Provincial Roads Program for the year 2006. Certainly, it was welcome news to the ears of people in my district. I believe it to be a positive move, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, given the fact that at least now we know that there is an amount of money that is put aside next year for roads work throughout the Province.

In the past years the tenders came out very late, and trying to lay asphalt in the fall, early fall and late fall of the year, is certainly a detriment to the contractors out there and certainly to the job being done and being done properly, Mr. Speaker.

This past year, we had some work done in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. In the St. Mary's-Riverhead area there was some new pavement laid just outside Colinet. Also, throughout Branch country, Route 100 between Branch and St. Brides, there were some culvert work that was carried out. New culverts were placed in five different locations, and a very major traffic thoroughfare in the Placentia area known as Jerseyside hill was paved also.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the past Minister of Transportation and Works for his co-operation on delivering that money, and helping to deliver that money, to the District of Placentia & St. Mary's this past summer.

Much more work needs to be done in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's in relation to road work. Just to touch on a couple of those places: Outside the community of North Harbour on the road to Colinet is a major area that needs work. Throughout Branch, St. Bride's and throughout the Cape Shore area to Point Verde, throughout Dunville, Freshwater, the road highway down to Admiral's Beach, through the communities of St. Joseph's and O'Donnells, the road to Mall Bay and down through St. Shotts, and the access road to Fox Harbour and Ship Harbour, just to name a few.

As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be carried out and, hopefully, as part of the new Provincial Roads Program that was recently announced, the District of Placentia & St. Mary's will receive money to look at those roads. I believe road improvements play an important part in rural development, economic development. To have proper roads throughout the area, I think, would be very positive not only for the district but indeed for the Province as a whole.

I put forward this petition on behalf of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's today and ask that the government give it due consideration as they put forward their plans for next year, the 2006 Provincial Roads Program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 45)

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

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

I am glad today to start off debate on this particular Bill 45. Just as the Explanatory Note says, it is to amend the act to establish a procedure for the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission to issue electronic worker's clearance certificates to persons authorized to request and receive them.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what it is all about. We have had quite a bit of discussion, even new into this department, on this particular bill, but the fact of the matter is that Bill 45 will provide a service consistent, really, with what is happening throughout different government departments. It happens, certainly, with the sheriff's department, with the registry, with the personal properties security registry and so on. It is the whole idea of streamlining and, of course, the whole idea of lessening the red tape of government. So this would, of course, be a productive move. It was something that has been asked for, for quite some time, Mr. Speaker.

As part of its Web strategy, the commission will replace its manual process for issuing certificates of clearance - approximately, by the way, 18,000 requests a year, Mr. Speaker. So, there are quite a number of these requests that come in. This will be able to be turned over within a day now, with the new electronic system. I think for everybody involved, all stakeholders, this will certainly streamline, through an electronic sense, what we can do very quickly as opposed to long waits of manually.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, just to make note of it, I am certain that through Committee stage we will have some more questions on it, but it removes that red tape. It gives the opportunity for employers and lawyers to get that information a lot more quickly, and I think it benefits everybody. So, I think it is a good move in the right direction. It is something that has been discussed for a number of years. It has been requested by a number of people. I am certainly glad we can move forward with this particular bill, and I look forward to debate and comment from my colleagues opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that this is just a bit of a housekeeping bill and making the thing e-friendly. This government has gone really e-friendly. It is an e-friendly government because they are cutting out so many offices in Newfoundland and Labrador I guess that pretty soon the only way you will get any response from this government is by computer, because there will not be anybody left in the employee to work on any problems.

I guess the only problem I have with this is the security of the system. How secure is the system? Because, really, we are talking about privacy issues. Right now, for example, if I represent somebody for Workers' Compensation, particularly in the appeal process -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to ask members if they could keep their conversations somewhat to a lower level. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, when we request information on a file, the injured worker has to sign a form indicating that it is okay to release the information to a third party. Normally, what happens is that the information comes by private courier to the person who requested the information. I guess the question I have for the minister is: Right now, will this be all online that you can go on - and we all realize that the worker's file is a very private file. It has all the medical records, all the medical information about the person. How secure will the system be in terms of making sure that nobody can go in on the system? I know when they put some of the other systems online, in terms of the deeds and other information, that anybody could go on the computer and get access to people's information. So, I have some concerns about this. What will happen in this particular case? I guess if it is guaranteed that there will be no access to information that will be easily available by anybody, I would not have any problem with the legislation.

The other part of the act indicates that there will be a fee charged for this service. Right here, it says in the act: The commission may charge a fee for the provision of information requested under this Act. Most of the people that I have represented in the sixteen-some years that I have been involved in politics - I have represented probably hundreds of people on Workers' Compensation appeals. Does that mean now that the information we need to get to be able to represent a constituent - will we have to pay a fee if we need to access the information on a computer system? This can be very, very expensive.

We all know that most of the people who need help in this area cannot afford high priced lawyers. Most of the injured workers who contact me and ask me to assist them in their Workers' Compensation appeals cannot afford to go and hire a lawyer. I would say most of the members who represent rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the majority of appeals that are done by Workers' Compensation in rural Newfoundland is done by the local MHA, whether on this side of the House or the other side of the House. As a matter of fact, I would say that probably 90 per cent of the appeals that are done is representation by the MHAs. Right now the files and all that sort of thing that will only be available by computer will still be available in hard copy and sent to us so that we can have it in advance to be able to sit down and analyze the files, consult with the doctors and all the people involved, all the professionals who are involved with the files. Normally, the medical records are listed. Will we have to pay for this information so that we can represent our constituents and represent them well in their hearings before the Workers' Compensation Tribunal?

If the minister is able to answer some of these questions about this piece of legislation, I have no problem with it. Hopefully, if they are doing something they are improving the lot of the injured worker.

I could go on and on in terms of a speech about workers' compensation and the job that has been done over the last number of years, but I will wait for the Committee and see what answers the minister has on this particular piece of legislation. If there are any other issues, I will handle them in Committee, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers on second reading.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words about Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act. We support the legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it will make things a little more speedy for the operations of the people dealing with workers' compensation and operating on liens that exist on properties as the result of assessments and assessments due.

I did have some questions on it, Mr. Speaker, and it may be something we can discuss at the Committee stage. There is an issue here in terms of what authority the board now has to charge for letters that are being given to people seeking information on assessments and on liens. No fee is charged for this service right now, and the act provides that it will be. One, perhaps, even more disturbing issue is that the time limit the Workers' Compensation Commission has to respond to requests is rather long, I think some twenty-one days.

If I can explain how this works, Mr. Speaker, and why this is important. This is one of these things known as statutory liens. In other words, there is a lien on a property by someone who is supposed to pay assessments that is there regardless of any paper work having been done to notify the public of those liens. This is an important matter for someone buying a house, for example. If you are buying a house from a contractor who builds a whole series of houses, in order for you to actually get title to that house there has to be - any liens that might be on it, whether it be a mechanic's liens for wages, whether it be a mortgage, whether it be a debt that might be owed by the contractor as registered in the Sheriff's Office, someone acting on your behalf, a lawyer or a law firm, would normally conduct a number of searches to determine whether or not there are any liens on the property. They would go to the Sheriff's Office and give the Sheriff a certain amount of money to conduct a search. The government collects money for that purpose. They would go to the Registry of Deeds in this building, or employ a searching service to do so, and to see if any of the workers of that company were not paid, or any of the suppliers of materials were not paid and filed a lien, an actual piece of paper filed in the Registry of Deeds.

There are a number of searches that have to take place, but there are other liens that do not really require any particular action in order to be put in place, and one of those is outstanding assessments for workers' compensation. Assessments that are required to be paid automatically attract a lien.

Retail sales tax is another one, for example. What has to happen in those cases is that the lawyer or the law firm would write a letter to the Minister of Finance, for example, and say: Are they any outstanding retail sales tax owing by this company? Are there any school taxes owed by this company or individual? That is the big racket we have had in the last year with the Minister of Finance about school taxes going back eight, ten, twelve years, that people did not even know about. All of a sudden, when they are trying to get a mortgage, they find out that they owe $2,500 in school taxes going back ten years. That is the kind of lien that I am talking about, a statutory lien that exists as a result of legislation before this House.

What happens in those cases is, you have to write the minister, ask for a clearance, or, in this case, write to the workers' compensation commission and ask for a clearance. Now, that procedure has been a little bit cumbersome in the past - I think everybody acknowledges that - and sometimes the workers' compensation commission has had some difficulty responding to those requests. What the minister's legislation is hoping to do is streamline that process to the point that it can now be done electronically. I do not think anybody in the Province, who is involved in this process, would have any difficulty with that. Unfortunately, the mechanisms, I am not sure, are there to effectively conduct the process. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker.

If you were to buy a property tomorrow, or make agreement to buy a property or a house tomorrow - and this goes on every day in this Province, people closing real estate transactions - normally there is a one, ten days, two weeks, maybe maximum three weeks, to close a property on an ordinary transaction. Somebody offers to buy a house and they are going to take possession of it in a few weeks. It is only after the financing been approved does normally a lawyer get involved in searching the title and satisfying themselves that the property is properly able to be sold. So, sometimes these requests go into the government, to the Sheriff's Office, two or three or four or five days before the closing and normally they are able to get a response. I would assume that in a normal course of events an electronic request, an electronic response, could happen a lot more quickly. I would expect that to be the case.

What I see instead, Mr. Speaker, in the legislation is a provision that it is only - if there is no response from the worker's compensation commission within twenty-one days then you can assume there are not liens. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that people do not have the luxury of waiting twenty-one days to close a transaction. The transaction is closing tomorrow or the next day, or next week, not twenty-one days from now, so I have a few problems with it. The principle is a good one, that you can have an electronic request and an electronic response, and that there is a commitment to acknowledging that request very quickly, but the concern that I have is that the provision of the legislation actually makes things worse instead of better when it comes to efficiently dealing with requests of that nature.

From that point of view, Mr. Speaker, the attempt to make the process more streamlined, I do not have a problem with it, but I do not want to see this be another source of fees for the government, or for the workers' compensation commission in this case, or a case where there is a situation where fees can be charged.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, in fees of this nature, they are regarded to some extent as hidden fees. We have seen registration of documents fees goes up; we have seen Sheriff certificate fees go up from $25 to $50 to $75. These have happened by this government over the last year or so, trying to raise money for the public purse, but what happens is that they get tacked on every time a transaction takes place. They show up on bill that you get after you have financed your mortgage or after you have bought your house. You see a list of all the fees that the law offices had to pay out on your behalf to the Government of Newfoundland to register documents, to get Sheriff certificates, to get something from city hall, and I do not want to see another fee from the workers' compensation commission to say it is another $50 that ends up being - sometimes people call them lawyers' legal fees. They are not legal fees at all. These are taxes that the government is imposing through its various agencies, and sometimes municipalities charge $25 to give you a certificate saying that we do not have any work orders outstanding on this property. These are the kind of things that are hidden fees that creep up, creep up and creep up. They ultimately have to be paid by the consumer. A lot of them - I am not saying they are not necessary, but in some cases, particularly in the case of the ones where the government is collecting them, they are actually forms of revenue for the government.

We might brag from time to time and say we do not have any land transfer tax in Newfoundland and Labrador. In Ontario, you pay a land transfer tax; we do not have one. No, we do not have a land transfer tax but we charge you $4 for every $1,000 your property is worth in order for you to register your deed. Registering your deed is pretty important if you are going to be sure to have title. We do not have a land transfer tax, but it might cost you $1,000 in fees to have your title registered and your mortgage registered, which is a requirement of the bank to lend you the mortgage. These are really forms of taxes, Mr. Speaker, and I have concerns about that.

The second thing that I have concerns about, and this is something that I hope the minister will speak to because there seems to be an access to information issue here, or a privacy issue perhaps - there was a flip side of that - in terms of what people's accounts might be with the workers' compensation commission. If I, as a business, or I, as an individual, have obligations to workers compensation - they may be disputed amounts, they may be legitimate amounts - to me that is, in a sense, similar to taxes. If my company or I owe taxes to the Government of Canada then it is not really anybody's business how much taxes I owe unless somehow or other they are involved in that particular transaction or they have some reason to know. I suspect that the same thing goes for workers' compensation assessments.

There may be competitive reasons why I would not want my fellow competitor or contractor to know what my workers' compensation assessment is. There may be reasons why - if this discloses the size of my operation. It may disclose things about my standing with the workers' compensation commission. It may disclose things about my financial ability to deal with certain things. It is a privacy issue. If money is owed to the workers' compensation commission, you either get a clearance or you do not. Should it be the case, Mr. Speaker, that somebody inquiring - whether it be a law firm or a lawyer, just somebody looking for information - have the right to request of the workers' compensation commission, how much money does the Government House Leader's business owe to workers' comp? Why should that be a matter of public information?

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't have a business.

MR. HARRIS: He does not have a business. Do you see what I mean? Here he is being slurred already and he does not even have a business. He does not owe money to workers' comp; he does not have a business. This is his business, but when he retires and he uses his great, talented experience to set up a business, he may owe money to Workers' Compensation. Whose business would it be, except his, as to what money he owes?

So, I think these are questions that are opened up by this legislation. They have not really been before this Legislature before, because I don't think there has been a right of somebody making inquiries to know anything other than yes, there is no Workers' Compensation lien, or yes, there is. Then they can make their decisions about whether to close a transaction or not, or do something about it.

These are questions that are important, as in the principle of having more efficient operations at the Workers' Compensation Commission, making it easier for information, and particularly with respect to liens being made available is a good thing. I find it hard to understand how giving the Workers' Compensation Commission twenty-one days to respond is going to speed up any transactions. In fact, it may give them an excuse to say: Well, we have twenty-one days to respond, so what is the hurry? I am not suggesting that would be the attitude, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly leaves that open to individuals to interpret it in that way.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, in principle, we support the legislation.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise in this House today to support the amendment to the piece of legislation, Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

From being in a position of business prior to my political life, I think this is a very worthwhile exercise and a very worthwhile amendment to this piece of legislation. It is certainly a piece that deals exclusively with streamlining and efficiency within the system; which is very, very important to employers, very important to lawyers and consistent with government's plan to minimize the red tape, which is so important to employers out there today. We have heard it time and time again over the last number of years. I have dealt with it myself in regards to my own business and what it takes to push things through and get things done. I think this is a very good thing, a very worthwhile piece of legislation on the amendment side. I think the employers and Chambers of Commerce across the Province will certainly embrace this piece of legislation in regards to its efficiency. That is what it is all about.

It says here that it will replace the manual process for issuing certificates of clearance. I think there are approximately 18,000 requests made yearly in regards to that piece there. If you can just imagine 18,000 requests over a year period on a manual process, how hard that is to deal with on an ongoing basis. We are living in an IT world. There is no denying that, and we have to move with the times. I think this piece of legislation, actually, is in consistency with other pieces of legislation across Canada. You know, everybody is moving to a more efficient, more streamlined program and delivery service. The employers are moving towards that and themselves. We did over a period of time. I remember when I got into pharmacy first, all we used was a typewriter, a pen and a calculator. Then we moved into the IT world of computers, and now you can pretty well fill a prescription without even touching the actual medications. You do it on a computer and then it goes to a bank of medications. It selects the right pill and then it dispenses it right into the bottle and puts the label onto it. That is called streamlining and efficiency, Mr. Speaker.

That is what this is all about. It allows the lawyers to request information, get it from the commission and get a manual certificate. I must also say that when you move into an IT system in regards to streamlining, there is always that fear that the manual process would cease to exist. That is a fear, but in this case the manual certificates will, again, parallel the IT system but, hopefully in time, as we move along, you will see the manual system phase itself out and then the IT system will take over. I am sure that is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, because I believe that the employers will, certainly, embrace this. I cannot see anybody out there not say that this is a great amendment. It is a great move forward. I think it is a great initiative by the department and I can only see good things coming from it.

Also, I might add, I noticed that in the piece of legislation, I asked a question in regard to jobs. It does not cause any job loss within the commission itself, and that is a very, very good thing. I think, as a matter of fact, in my world when computers were introduced first, we thought there was going to be all kinds of job loss within the pharmacy program, but it actually increased jobs because we were able to do more things and provide more services. So, that is actually what happens in the real world. They always say that a computer would replace fifteen or twenty jobs in the workplace and that kind of stuff, and I have heard all those kinds of comments over the years and whatnot, but that is not what happens. It actually creates jobs or, at least, makes them more efficient.

Also, the piece of legislation on the amendment also has a sector there which would guarantee that the transactions would be tracked and monitored by the commission, all the way through, to make sure that they are being used in the right context and that kind of stuff, and only a minimal amount of information is going to be released as well; the name, the address, and the outstanding assessment account balances will be only provided to the legal communities. So, that is a very minimal amount of information going out over there. I do not think anybody's rights are violated in that regard as well.

So, I think all these things are very, very good things in regards to this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I support this piece and take great pleasure in getting up here and supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, that is about all I have to say on this matter. I comment the minister in bringing this forward in this House today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

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

MR. SHELLEY: And Labrador Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: And Labrador Affairs.

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

I know it is a long name, Mr. Speaker, but you have to try to get used to it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the beginning of this debate today. Certainly, as I said right from the outset, this is all about streamlining and, of course, making this a better system. If we look through government, through a lot of departments, especially with registries, this has been done in many already. I note, for example, the sheriff's department, Enforcement Registry, it is now this system; personal property securities registry. So, any registries.

I just want to make a couple of comments, not to answer all the questions at this stage, but certainly to make some indications to some points that were brought up. First of all, by my colleague for Bellevue on the security of the system. I ensure the minister that the security will be maintained. In fact, the information - and, Mr. Speaker, there may have been some confusion on the part of the Member for Bellevue, but just to clarify. He talks about doing cases for constitutions as we all do, and I have done it many times. This is not about all of that information. This is specifically for one thing only, and that is for certificates of clearance on liens and that type of thing, for doing business of that sort. It is not about all the information at the commission or nothing. So, I just want to clarify that for the Member for Bellevue, that it certainly does take into any account of that; information will be available, as it was all the time and he will still be able to do his cases and support his constituents and work on their behalf when it comes to the commission. So, it has nothing to do with that, just strictly the clearance certificates that sometimes they need for business transactions. That was one of the points that the Member for Bellevue brought up.

Also the security, as I just told him, that will continue to be as is, keeping in mind this point, Mr. Speaker, that this information provided to the legal community about the employer status will be very limited. As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi probably already knows, it just strictly sticks with the name, address and the outstanding assessment of account balances. That is all, no more information than that, so the security is maintained.

Mr. Speaker, just to make a couple of comments, and if we want to continue this in Committee we certainly can have some more questions later, but to respond to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on one point on the twenty-one days, I tell the member, first of all, it was twenty-eight days. It is now reduced to twenty-one. A lot of that has to do with the experience of the people at the commission who have been dealing with this for a number of years, and I am sure many people throughout the Province are familiar with that, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, it has gone from twenty-eight days now down to twenty-one days.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member, very rarely - this is from experience of the commission doing this - has that time ever been used, the entire twenty-eight days. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have some numbers for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I will certainly be glad to share those numbers with him. Just to give you an example: Last year, just over 18,000 requests came in, in one year, to the commission, and 90 per cent of the 18,000 that came in - I say to the member, 90 per cent, these are numbers just from last year; we can do previous years, too, to give you some more examples of it - were handled within twenty-four hours. Then, to further that, I say to the member, 7 per cent were handled within 72 hours.

The fact of the matter is - and this is the way it has been explained to me; and, of course, the member being a background lawyer would understand this - that is 97 per cent that have been handled within seventy-two hours. This was last year, and apparently every year previous to that was very similar. Three per cent last year got very complex. They went on with audits and so on, so it was difficult, Mr. Speaker. In those extreme cases it does take a considerable amount of time, sometimes a couple of weeks, even up to the twenty-one day period. After that particular time, when that does run out - that is why, if we had to wait in those very rare occasions for the twenty-one days to pass, Mr. Speaker, at the end of that time that means the lien would be no longer required. It would run out, basically.

From my understanding last year - as I say to the member, to answer that question - 97 per cent were handled within seventy-two hours, and 90 per cent were handled within the first twenty-four hours, so it is usually done pretty quickly.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, another point to add to this is that the manual process will still be there for the people who do want to use it. On the other hand, for people who use the electronic process, the twenty-one days, although being there, they believe and they are pretty confident, in discussions I have had with my officials, that they will be able to turn most of these over - around 90 per cent, certainly 95 per cent - within a couple of days, a couple or three days. I think that makes it pretty efficient, Mr. Speaker. I am pretty pleased with that.

I will make one more comment, Mr. Speaker, that was brought up earlier by the member. If that does not address it, we will certainly discuss it further in Committee stage. Also, on the fees, there are still no fees with the people who have been using this regularly, employers and lawyers. I do not have a percentage on that, Mr. Speaker, but I pretty well think that is everybody that uses this system for this particular piece of information. Employers and, of course, lawyers on behalf of their clients - and, you are right, the member said it would be another fee tacked on to the service that they are providing. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no fee that will apply to the employers and lawyers in this case who are looking for this information for a business transaction.

It says, may charge a fee. That is only if, Mr. Speaker - we have a piece of legislation here that, if there are nuisances that would arise, or some kind of abuse of the system, I suppose you could say, in other words, that the fee is there possibly for those type of things. Otherwise, it is going to stay the same. There will be no fees for the employers and lawyers who use this on behalf of their clients to make that particular business transaction.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very good piece of legislation. It is something that was requested and suggested for a number of years now, I understand. I am only new into this department, but certainly in the briefings I have had with my officials and people at the commission who have dealt with this for many, many years, that is their experience. The fact of the matter is, a lot of this will be handled within a day, two to three days at the most, and it should be able to streamline the entire system.

I am delighted to bring this forward on second reading, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to more comments from my colleagues in Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation 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 Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Act. (Bill 45).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? On tomorrow?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 45)

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

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Denturists. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that debate had begun on Bill 60, and that the minister had spoken.

Continuing debate on Bill 60, which is An Act Respecting Denturist, the Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: I was getting to my feet, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. the Leader of the NDP party was saying I should get up and sink my teeth into this bill.

Mr. Speaker, with all the tension that has been in the House of Assembly today maybe I will tell a little story that has to do with denturists actually. The minister, I am sure, will appreciate this. In my district, of course, there isn't a denturist, and it is not unusual, I say to the minister, not to be able to find a denturist on the Coast of Labrador. What we do have is a travelling clinic, you see. When the dentist comes in and someone needs to have false teeth, they can have an impression done right there at the clinic and it is sent out to St. John's to have these teeth made for the individual.

I know of a circumstance, Mr. Speaker - and actually the individual involved may be even watching the House of Assembly this evening because I know they like to do that. Anyway, this individual gets a call from the local clinic telling him that his teeth are in and he can come and pick them up. He goes over to the clinic to do that, Mr. Speaker, picks them up, gets home, opens them up, and this is a huge set of dentures. Now, this man, if you ever met him, has a really small mouth, something like the member.

[Laughter]

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, he took them out and looked at them and said: Well, maybe they are mine, so I will try them anyway. He tried to get them into his mouth but, Mr. Speaker, they would not fit. As the story goes in a small town, by six o'clock that evening we had found out who owned the teeth, and it was only a matter of crossing the harbour, exchanging the teeth with the fellow down the road and getting your own back. That was my story about denturists. Mr. Speaker, it was quite funny at the time and is always much funnier when you hear this chap tell it. Anyway, it is the circumstance of where we live and sometimes it can cause you to have some fun with it.

The bill the minister has brought in today, Bill 60, will no doubt allow the denturists in our Province to have an association that will fall in line with all of the other professional associations within the health care sector, so that when there are situations that arise with regard to denturists and their profession, any issues that may be, I guess, around misconduct or any particular issues to that order, they can be dealt with through an appropriate mechanism, and the mechanism is what has been brought forward today as part of this legislation. It will give them an opportunity to have an open and accountable process in which all of the information can be put forward and looked at and viewed by the public. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is important in terms of maintaining integrity within all of these professional associations and within the actual professions that they represent.

With those few words, I just want to say to the minister, that I will be supporting the bill he has brought forward as it relates to denturists, and I will wait until it is tabled in third reading.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close debate on second reading.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I thank the hon. member for her comments and her support of Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists. This is the last bill of this nature. This is, actually, the tenth bill that we have addressed with respect to health care professionals in the Province. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank both members opposite, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, for their support throughout the process.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that this bill be now read a second time, that is Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Denturists. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists has now been a read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: Later in the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Denturists," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave." (Bill 60)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Order 6, Bill 48.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend the Income Tax Act 2000 No. 2." (Bill 48)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to allow for an non-refundable credit for eligible adoption expenses up to a maximum of $10,000. This is based upon the federal adoption tax credit. We want to be able to move simultaneously with the federal government on this particular issue. That will allow for that credit to be applied as an adoption expense. It is very straightforward. It is the only addition we are doing here.

If there are any particular questions, I could certainly entertain them in my closing comment or in Committee stage. Other than that, I have no further comment, Mr. Speaker, on this particular bill.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister indicated, a lot of tension regarding this bill will focus on the federal government, whether or not they will pass their legislation. If they do, we want to be ready, that ours is actually passed and ready to go. As we know, a lot of things are hovering since yesterday's announcement regarding a political election, a federal election.

I want to make mention, too, when we are talking about income tax, that this government, two years ago, passed a change to the Income Tax Act that would allow low-income earners to have a benefit of a reduction in income tax and in some cases no income tax. Unfortunately, they announced it in 2004 and it does not come into affect until 2006. As a result, those low-income earners have been waiting in the wings for two years to get a benefit that was announced by this government two years ago, and it will be a recycled announcement again this year I am sure. That is kind of unfortunate, to advise people that they are about to get a benefit but they have to wait two years to receive it.

Of course, since that benefit was announced, low-income earners have had a lot to deal with. They have had 155 new fees to deal with that this government imposed. They have also had a huge increase in electricity, almost 25 per cent over the past two and a half years. There was no mention of anything by this government to address high heating costs. We have seen in the media over the past couple of months, many seniors who are overly concerned about how they are going to heat their homes this winter.

In fact, I have a constituent in the urban centre of Grand Falls-Windsor - which is hard to imagine - this constituent will have to actually have to spend most of the cold days in her bed. She cannot afford to make repairs to her oil tank because it costs about $1,000 now to put in a new oil tank. Government pays $300 and the other cost has to be paid by the homeowner. Number one, she cannot afford to get the oil tank replaced; number two, she cannot afford to actually fill up the tank for the very first time, which will cost about $900. In order to be able to get the government rebate on the fuel adjustment she has to fill up a tank so she can produce an oil bill. She is in a Catch-22. She cannot afford to replace the tank and then she cannot afford to fill up the tank with oil if she could replace the tank. She cannot get any of the government subsidy, she cannot produce an oil bill. She cannot produce an oil bill that she can send into the Department of Finance in order to get this government rebate of $400 which she would qualify for if she had the money to replace the tank in the beginning.

I am sure there are lots of seniors out there, in the latter part of their senior years, who have an oil tank that they cannot replace and, as a result of that, they are depending on, probably, a heater that is plugged in or maybe the oven door or spending a lot of time in their homes confined to one area of their home, or probably at the mall. Now, this is a very sad situation when we consider that we have $2 billion sitting here in the bank.

I was just looking at the latest piece of information that was dropped on my desk, as well as the other forty-seven members in this House of Assembly, and that is the report of the Auditor General. The Auditor General is outlining two or three key areas that we have to be concerned with as a Province. One is that this Province is very vulnerable when it comes to maintaining its financial upgrades that we have just witnessed with the Atlantic Accord.

The Auditor General is pointing out three areas that this government needs to pay attention to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: One of the areas that the Auditor General is pointing out is that this government places too much reliance on federal government revenues, and that is revenues for health care, for education and for social needs. What the Auditor General is saying between the lines is that this government is not producing its own source revenues. In other words, this government is not growing the economy, they are not producing the jobs that they said they would produce and they are relying heavily on the transfers from the federal government.

The majority of the Province's current debt is with foreign investors, and we know what that means: that every time there is an increase of percentage on interest rates, it can cause a shockwave based on our $1 billion of foreign debt. Just a 1 per cent increase can cause $11 million in new interest that will be owed by this government.

Also, this government is relying heavily on oil revenues which has worked to their advantage. They forecast oil revenues to be $38 a barrel and the average has been roughly $58 a barrel, but that can go the other way as well.

What the Auditor General is saying is that this government has relied heavily on sources of revenue that they have not created themselves. They have not grown the economy by creating new jobs, they have not grown the economy by creating new revenue, and indeed they are forecasting out-migration and a loss of our population which will affect federal transfers in the future. This government must zero in on growing the economy, because right now there are three areas that are propping up this economy and it is an artificial prop.

I also want to draw attention to one of the other things that the Auditor General has stated in his report. I don't know if it is a case of not having enough employees to do the work, but the Auditor General is saying that there have been a tremendous amount of errors in every department of government. Every department of government that submitted information, financial information, to the Auditor General had errors. For instance, Education had errors in its statements of $25 million. Finance itself, $24 million. Every department of government had errors. In fact, after taking over government in 2004 the Auditor General found $40 million of errors by this government that has submitted to the Auditor General. Last year it was almost double, $76 million of errors. In other words, that was money that government thought they had in the bank and were depending on that money for various reasons, to do programs and so on. The Auditor General picked up $75 million in mistakes by every department of this government. That says a lot. You either haven't got competent people working or you haven't got enough people to do the work. That is what that says.

I would like to talk, too, about Blue Cross which is the agency that looks after the insurance for our active employees and also for our retired personnel. Previous to a year or so ago, this wasn't considered a liability, but as of now there is roughly $1 billion that the provincial government has to set aside to take care of contributions for its active employees and also its retired people.

I also want this government to look at the resolutions that were made by seniors in Grand Falls-Windsor in September of this year. We heard today in this House of Assembly repeated questioning of government as to why they are not providing long-term accommodations for people in the City of Corner Brook, and it was sad to hear that seniors in their elderly years are been sent wherever there is a bed available. It may not be in their own hometown. The Minister of Health always says, well, it is a temporary arrangement, but how temporary is an arrangement when someone is over eighty? They may never get the chance to come back, actually, to their hometown and live out the remainder of their days with their loved one. Any kind of move when someone is at that age it is really upsetting to the whole family, so something needs to be done in that area for sure.

We want the minister to look at the resolutions that came out of this conference. My understanding is that the seniors have not been getting the audience that they have wanted to get with this new government. They have not been given any time to actually sit down and lay out the problems of seniors around this Province. That is very important.

There are a lot of drugs that are on the market now that can treat diseases that this government needs to put in their formulary. One, in particular, is the Alzheimer's drug. We have heard a lot about the Alzheimer's drug. At one point, we heard last spring - I think most people got the impression that it was a done deal, but when the Budget was actually rolled out, it did not come to fruition. That is a drug that is causing a lot of anguish. When I read the obituary columns, there are a lot of people at a very young age experiencing Alzheimer's. It is such a debilitating disease, if there is anything out there that can address this problem, government really should do all they can for families.

There is another Budget coming up, and that leads me to talk about the $2 billion. It was in July that, that cheque actually came to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. In October, just three months later, there was $15 million that had accrued in interest on that $2 billion. Now, government has not made any commitment at to how they intend to divvy up that $2 billion or what their plans are. That is something I would like to ask Florence Delaney about because I am sure she had a recommendation for government on what they should do with the $2 billion. She is not here today. In fact, for anyone who is watching this telecast right now, I am sure that the people who are watching do not even know that there is no Treasury Board anymore. There is no second step to scrutinizing any requests that come to government. It is zip right from the department to the Cabinet Table. There is no in between. Treasury Board does not scrutinize any requests that come from departments. It goes right from the departments to the Cabinet Table, and the Cabinet people make the decision on whether or not it is a deal. This has happened over the past twelve months.

I thought this was a very fair request that came forward from our seniors. Seniors wanted a resolution that government would include electricity for those who heat their homes with electricity. They were looking for a subsidy. This was promised and recommended and danced to, almost. When the Minister of Finance, who is sitting across from me now, when he was in this very seat that I am sitting in here today and standing at, he put forward the private members' resolution and said, by all accounts, that we should include electricity users for a heat subsidy. He did not do it though. He did not do it, and there is a lot that he did not do.

In fact, the Minister of Natural Resources said at the very same time, my goodness, if he ever formed the government he would not even include HST on electricity. Where did that go? By the wayside, the same as Alzheimer's drugs. What do we have to do to get a cancer clinic? Practically dance in the streets, beg for our own money to look after cancer patients.

Seniors today are making a very small request. They want government to include the cost for eye examinations. Why doesn't government do that? It is a very small investment for the contribution that seniors have made all around this Province. I cannot see why they do not do that. Its says: Many people, especially senior citizens, are required to receive treatment for their eyes by having lenses replaced in order to fully or partly restore vision. Seniors are asking that superior quality lenses be fully covered by MCP or the provincial drug card. If somebody breaks a lens during the time when they can qualify for a new pair of glasses, apparently government will not cover the cost of replacement. That is a big problem. Maybe seniors are going to have to do without glasses and everybody needs glasses, generally, over forty-five. You can just check around this House of Assembly, unless you have had laser surgery on your eyes, you mostly need some help. Almost everybody needs glasses.

They want government to roll back the cost of ambulance fees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Being away from a main centre and having to call for an ambulance when you are a senior is a big decision. If you are a senior, for instance, in Buchans Junction and you have to call for an ambulance to go to Grand Falls-Windsor, you are going to make sure that you are really sick and you really need an ambulance before you are going to put out $115 to cover the cost of that ride, because you know if you are going to come back in an ambulance, it is still going to be another $115. Now, this government increased those fees from $85 to $115 a trip.

I know a woman in Grand Falls who needed to go in an ambulance that took her less than five minutes, and that woman was in her nineties and she had to pay $115 to get an ambulance right in Grand Falls-Windsor, and pay that kind of exorbitant fee. You know, that is not good enough for our seniors. The Minister of Finance, who is already heavily involved now in looking at the Budget for 2006 - last year was considered to be the Year of the Senior, make every year the Year of the Senior. Look at what you could do for seniors.

Seniors have already asked to have the provincial drug card and MCP look at foot care for seniors, particularly those who are have diabetes. Can you imagine a first fee now to go and have foot care done is $40 for the initial appointment, and for every one after that is $30. By addressing this problem early on, it prevents amputations and circulatory problems. For a very small fee, government could do these preventative health services for seniors. That is certainly another issue that needs to be looked at when the minister is making up the Budget for 2006.

There are so many things that could be talked about during this talk about income tax, but I would suggest to the minister, the income tax bill that we are looking at here today, Bill 48, coincides with federal regulations. When that particular piece of legislation is passed in the House of Commons, we will be ready.

I would say to the minister, in conclusion, I agree with Bill 48 but I do not agree with what you are doing to our seniors today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

This provision provides for an exemption or a reduction, I guess, or a credit, for eligible adoption expenses to a maximum of $10,000 based upon the federal adoption tax credit. Now, that is something that I do not know very much about, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know what eligible expenses are allowed under the federal act. Perhaps the minister can outline some of them to us.

I understand that adoption can be an expensive procedure, particularly if you are doing an international adoption, which a number of people in this Province have undertaken. The travel expenses to go to a foreign country to meet whatever requirements there are, there can be significant costs involved. In other provinces, Mr. Speaker, there are very significant expenses involved using private adoption agencies which we do not have operating in this Province, although I gather the Province is looking at providing for an option for people to pay for home studies and pay through private agencies for home studies to be done. We also have a course in this Province called PRIDE, I believe it is called, for adoption - getting people to undertake adoptions.

There have been some concerns expressed in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and I think very legitimate concerns expressed by people who are anxious to adopt children, whether they be so-called domestic adoptions within the Province or international adoptions, that the procedure is too cumbersome and, in fact, does not meet the needs and the desires of people who are most anxious to go through the adoption process to bring a child from a foreign country to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know there have been a number of people interested in adopting from China, for example, which has facilitated in the past international adoptions. I have even been approached, Mr. Speaker, by people who have children of their own, who have masters degrees in social work, being required to wait eighteen months to take a course on adoptions to qualify for an international adoption, which I find to be rather ironic, that someone who already has children they are looking after, presumably a straightforward home study would indicate that is the case. Instead of approving them based on their home study, and based on an evaluation of that nature done very speedily, we have them required to take a course. The catch is, the course is not available for eighteen months. Someone who is most anxious to adopt and wants to bring a child into the country as a foreign adoption - for example, a child living in an orphanage in China or some other country, Central America - who that family is prepared to welcome them into their home, want a good home for, are prevented from doing that by these steps that are required to be taken, that cannot be taken because the provision is not there to adequately meet them and are prevented from doing so.

I know, obviously, there are costs associated with adoption. I am not aware of any particular tax credit for having children naturally, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, there is a recognition here that there are significant costs involved in adoptions, and $10,000 is the tax credit that is applicable, that you can deduct from your income and not pay tax on, if you engage in an adoption and incur these expenses.

I think that is considerable support for adoptions, and I am happy to see that we are going to sign on to promoting and supporting people engaged in the adoption process, but I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a precursor to this government imposing fees of its own, or expenses on people who are willing to adopt and want to adopt by increasing those expenses, requiring people to go to private agencies to pay for these courses, or go to private agencies to pay themselves out-of-pocket for a course that should be offered by the Department of Social Services or the government community services if, indeed, such a course is even required.

There were other complaints, Mr. Speaker, about this course. There were some complaints that this course was designed for fostering circumstances, which is a totally different experience than child adoptions. I understand that some changes have been made to this course to try and accommodate that. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the plan for international adoptions, it would be more important to have some sort of a support group and some sort of experience in terms of advice as to how to handle the cultural differences. How, for example, if you are going to particularly bring people from another country, from China or from Central America - they bring with them their own ethnicity and culture, and I think it is important, in some cases, to ensure that these children are somehow or other being given some understanding of their own culture, even though they may be living in Newfoundland and Labrador.

A little child born in China, who obviously looks Chinese to anybody who would see this child, needs to have some sense of their identity, as well as being nurtured in a loving home. These are issues that will be issues for this child when they grow up and when they become part of our society. In helping parents or perspective parents to understand how those issues would affect the physiology of the child, seem to me to be very important and things that people who are about to engage in foreign adoptions, in particular, should be able to learn about and know. I know the Province is trying to be very cautious in this regard, not wishing to support and sponsor families for adoption by giving the okay without being sure that it is a proper home, but when we have parents with several children, who perhaps have already adopted and are seeking to adopt another child, to say to that couple or that family that you must now go to this course - that is not available to you for eighteen months - before you can proceed with another adoption, I think seems to be a significant deterrent and unnecessary burden to place on families in these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, we have a demographics issue in this Province, in terms of the number of newborns who are born through natural birth. We have a declining population. The family size are getting smaller over the last generation. We have out-migration as an issue. We have an aging population. One of the ways of assisting in population stability is to support adoptions, whether they be internal adoptions, providing a home for an individual who - for circumstances, obviously, have nothing to do with the child; a home is not available to them or their natural parents are unable to, or unwilling to, or for some reason should not be permitted to look after a child, then a suitable home, a loving family willing to bring up a child as a part of their family, that should be encouraged.

In other countries where they have, for various reasons, the inability to look after all the children being born there who may end up institutionalized in an orphanage under conditions which are totally unsuitable, that to give that child the advantage of a loving home where the child would be welcomed, nurtured and provided with an education and with opportunities that they would never, ever achieve in the circumstances into which they were born is a very positive thing. I think, to the extent that this legislation encourages that, I support it because I know families have been willing to make extremely great sacrifices in order to adopt a child, whether domestically or internationally.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, this is not a cover for the privatization of certain services that are now made available publicly, and should be. If it means that the government is obliged to vet a family for an adoption, well then that should be done as part of government services. If the courses cannot be put on for eighteen months because there is inadequacy of resources or there is inadequacy of trained social workers to put on the course, then perhaps greater effort should be made by government to engage social workers, to hire social workers, to hire trained people to put on these courses and to provide the kind of experience that might be necessary to assist families in the adoption process. I do not think that just having a course for the sake of saying that we had certain barriers or certain hurdles that people had to attain before they could go into the adoption process, that is not good enough. I do not mean to denigrate the course itself or to suggest that the information contained in the course is not valuable. It may well be valuable, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes a necessity may be questioned in certain circumstances, but certainly the criticism that the course which is required is not available, for sometimes up to eighteen months and more, is not good enough when this government is requiring this course as a precondition to being approved for either a domestic or international adoption.

I hope that changes, Mr. Speaker, and that significant effort is made to improve that circumstance. I hope that this tax credit is not a cover for new charges that might be imposed upon people seeking to adopt. I wonder, when the minister closes debate on this bill, whether he can outline the kind of charges or kind of adoption expenses that are eligible for this tax credit. Could he outline those to the House so we will understand what it is he is asking us to support here, because obviously there is no attachment to the bill indicating what are eligible adoption expenses under the Income Tax Act and or what plans are being made to include others. The federal adoption tax credit has, obviously, certain adoption expenses that are eligible. Perhaps the minister can outline to us what they are or what they are proposed to be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: It is my understanding that when you are speaking about a money bill, and this one is, an income tax bill, that you can pretty well talk about anything that involves money in the Province. I see that you nod your head and say that I am correct.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use a few minutes to discuss the letter that the Premier sent to the Prime Minister today, and the leader of the two other parties, the Conservative and the NDP parties, because they all involve - if, in fact, they are carried out or accomplished - if we are successful in accomplishing these, they will all involve extra dollars to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In that regard we support these initiatives, but I would like to talk for a few minutes on how the Premier arrived at them.

The first one says: Does your party support an early retirement program on a 70-30 federal-provincial cost-shared basis for workers impacted by the changes in the fishing industry?

Well, I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we have always advocated that we should have an early retirement program. In fact, a Liberal government, back in 1993-1994 when the moratorium was called, put forward that proposal. At the time I was working for the Department of Fisheries and I know how much work that entailed by the provincial government to get that program up and running and to convince the federal government that it was necessary, and necessary for them to participate in it.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked questions here in the House of Assembly for the past two years regarding an early retirement package, and that this government, this Tory government in the Province, should be asking the federal government to do exactly that. I heard the Member for Bonavista North last week on the radio or in the House when he said that he had written the federal government requesting an early retirement program, but I think what the people of the Province should realize is that, until the provincial government becomes active on this file, until they seriously put forward a written and formal request of government in Ottawa, nothing is going to happen - and, it has to be a detailed request. It is no good for simply the Minister of Fisheries, like the previous Minister of Fisheries, the member who represents St. Anthony and the Straits, or White Bay up there, to say to a federal minister, in passing, at a conference, that we are interested in doing an early retirement package.

As we all know, travelling around in your districts on a daily basis, people ask for certain things. For example, if a constituent of mine in the Town of Summerford says, I don't have water and sewer in my house and I would like for you to get me water and sewer, the first thing I tell them is that you have to go to your town council and get them to make a formal request of government; because, if the town council does not make a formal request then obviously the government is not going to take it seriously.

What I am saying is that this government has not made any formal request, except for this letter that just went off to government yesterday afternoon, I understand - we got a copy of it here at 2:30 this afternoon - saying that we want you to agree to an early retirement package that is cost-shared 70-30.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) no government in Ottawa now.

MR. REID: My colleague from Bellevue just made an interesting comment. Today, at 11:00 a.m., there is no government in Ottawa. There is an election ongoing. They are asking parties in Ottawa to support this.

I kept saying it, and my colleague from Grand Bank is on the record; she asked three or four questions last week in the House of Assembly of the current Minister of Fisheries, asking him, has he presented a formal request to the federal government outlining what they are requesting in an early retirement package, how much the provincial government was going to put into this program, and asking the federal government for their contribution as well.

My colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair had a discussion with the federal Minister of Fisheries in Goose Bay last week and asked him if there was any formal request from the provincial government for an early retirement package and the answer was no, they were not aware that there was a formal request made.

I talked to the hon. Bill Matthews, the federal MP for Burin-Placentia-Stephenville area just yesterday and I said: Bill, has there been a formal request put forward by this government on a cost-shared basis for an early retirement package for plant workers and fishermen in this Province? The answer was: Not aware of it.

I mean, it is fine and dandy, and we support an early retirement program on this side cost-shared with the federal and provincial governments, but the question is: Why did he wait until the election writ was dropped, the government was dissolved, to put it forward to the federal government. I am asking, if he was that interested, why didn't he do it before? That is one of the issues. That was the first one.

The second one: Will your party support imposing custodial management on the continental shelf...?

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for that, I would say, since the current Minister of Fisheries, the member who represents Lewisporte in the House of Assembly, when he was Minister of Fisheries, back up until 1989. I did not mean to use that word, back up until 1989, but back in 1989, when he was minister himself, I am sure that he mentioned to the federal minister, or at least discussed the issue with him of custodial management. I know for a fact that when Clyde Wells was Premier of the Province, and Walter Carter was the Minister of Fisheries, they made many, many written and oral presentations to the federal government on behalf of the people of the Province, and even explained how the custodial management would work.

I know when John Efford was there he did the same thing. I know that I had numerous discussions. I did a presentation not only the federal minister; I made presentations to my colleagues from Atlantic Canada. I made a presentation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries in Ottawa. I made a presentation before a Senate Committee on Fisheries in Ottawa. All of those people - a formal presentation on custodial management.

Remember back when the people who are now in government were in Opposition and they formed an all-party committee. They called it an all-party committee, and they had some very high profile individuals in the Province on that committee, like Mr. Gus Etchegary; I think Jim Morgan was on it. The only people who were not invited to become part of the all-party committee was the official government at the time, the Liberal government at the time. I was Minister of Fisheries and I was not invited to sit on that all-party committee. The purpose behind it was to try and achieve custodial management.

Well, as soon as they got elected they dropped the issue of custodial management, never heard of it since. It gets some lip service from time to time when we raise the question in the House of Assembly: What are you doing about custodial management? The first thing the Premier said about it is, we do not have that confrontational approach with the federal government. We are going to work with them to achieve our goals.

We saw what happened to that just a year ago. We hear from the Minister of Fisheries, who stands regularly - or the previous Minister of Fisheries, I say, the now Minister of Transportation and Works, who spoke on numerous occasions in the last two years that he was pleased with the direction in which the federal government was moving ahead with regard to foreign overfishing. It seems like custodial management came off the table and they were willing to work through NAFO. They were willing to say, oh, yes, the Prime Minister was in Europe last week and he mentioned it; we are pleased with the way that file is going. Now, all of a sudden, there is an election call and custodial management goes from the bottom of the pile to the top, right behind early retirement that we have not heard you people mention once, only when questioned by us on this side of the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why hasn't this been made an issue in the past two years? Why hasn't it been made an issue? Then they talk about cod being put on the endangered species list, and the Premier jumped up today and said: I am some glad, boy. He said: I wrote them yesterday afternoon, to get cod taken off the endangered species list. Guess what? He said: They took it off, so I am really proud my letter worked already. Well, I think the Premier should go back and look at the newscast last week when John Efford, the federal MP for Avalon District, got up last Tuesday and said, a full week ago, that he spoke to Geoff Regan and, indeed, that was going to be done. So I tell the Premier, he was a week late with his letter going to Ottawa, because the federal minister from this Province and the federal Fisheries Minister had already decided that was not going to happen. So he was a little late with his letter.

Mr. Speaker, the next one: Does your party support the transfer of sale of the federal government's share in Hibernia? That is something that this party, our party, the one that I represent here, asked your Premier to put on the list last year along with the Atlantic Accord, that we would be given that 8 per cent or (inaudible) it. I know that when we were government, and Roger Grimes was Premier, he made formal representation to the federal government to do exactly that. We haven't heard anything about that, and two years ago, around the same time when we were talking about a federal election, we said: Put that on the list as well because that would be of great benefit financially to the people of this Province. Again, this is two years too late he is putting it on the list. I hope he is successful in getting it and I hope the people of the Province are successful in obtaining every single one of these items that are being asked for.

All I am asking today, Madam Speaker, is: Why haven't we heard about this in the past? Why hasn't this been an issue? What haven't we been fighting the fight for custodial management? Why haven't we been fighting the fight for an early retirement package? Why haven't we been fighting the fight for the 8 per cent share in Hibernia? Because then we would not need the letter. The federal members in Ottawa, on all sides of the House, would know exactly what the main issues are in Newfoundland and Labrador and we would not have to be calling them up and asking them what their position is on it.

Madam Speaker, does your party support immediate efforts to significantly increase the federal government's presence in the Province? This party over on this side of the floor certainly supports this, and over the years we have seen services eroded, we have seen jobs cut by the federal government of this Province. I can mention a few: the Gander weather office.

Last week, and I am not picking up for the federal Member for Labrador, but I heard the member who represents Happy Valley-Goose Bay or Lake Melville District up here criticizing the member, Todd -

MR. HICKEY: You don't even know his name. Russell.

MR. REID: Todd Russell.

I can say to the member opposite, I was not besmirching his character like you were in the House of Assembly last week, when you basically were saying he is useless, he has not delivered a thing to Labrador. While the federal government has cuts jobs and services in this Province - and I agree that we will fight like everybody else to have these services put back in - I noticed last week that Todd Russell dropped down in Labrador and gave a commitment that 5 Wing Goose Bay was going to left open for five years. They are going to put a federal presence in Labrador with regard to the Coast Guard, and a number of other initiatives, $155 million worth.

I say to the Member for Lake Melville, he said he was going to keep the federal member's feet to the fire. Well, I ask: What have you done to that fire? We have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker, but the problem that I see with it is, here is the Premier of this Province going to the federal government and saying, you are cutting services, you are cutting jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, we want that to stop, and this same Premier and this same Minister of Finance and these same members opposite have just cut more jobs and services to the rural parts of this Province than any other government prior to it. They have cut thousands of jobs in the last two budgets. They have cut services, they have closed things, they have closed courthouses, they have closed schools, they have cut hospital boards, they have cut school boards, they have laid off 500 teachers, they have laid off nurses, they have laid off everyone who works in the civil service, they have closed HRE offices, they have closed highway depots, and the list goes on and on and on. They have closed hospital beds on Fogo Island, they have closed hospital beds in Corner Brook, they have cancelled hospitals, and are going to build them again now in Grand Bank. Even though I agree 100 per cent that the federal government should not be cutting jobs and services in this Province, I find it a little hypocritical coming from the person who wrote the letter.

Mr. Speaker, does your party support the federal-provincial cost-shared agreement of the Trans-Labrador Highway? No doubt in the world, full consent from this side of the House to do it. No problem. I think, as well, that this government should also be doing, with their $2 billion, some work on the roads that they are responsible for in the Province rather than cherry-picking districts and putting road work in Tory districts and not doing it in Liberal districts.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair says that out of the $48 million that this government gets up and touts everyday, and beats their chests and says how glad they are to talk about it, she got $100,000. Look at the amounts that Liberal districts got compared to Tory districts. They might get up now in a few minutes and try and be coy and say: Well, the reason we are spending it on Tory districts is because they were neglected when the Liberal government was in. Well, I say to the members opposite, there are a lot of members over there who represented what were Liberal districts and were well looked after, along with the Tory districts in this Province, when we were in government. So, you cannot use that excuse anymore.

Mr. Speaker, here is the one that I really like. They are talking about Marine Atlantic and how this government, the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wants the federal Government of Canada to reduce ferry rates on the Gulf. Listen to this, I say to my hon. colleagues, listen to this. The provincial government, under the Premier's signature, wants the federal government to cut ferry rates across the Gulf on Marine Atlantic. How hypocritical! An excellent thing to ask the federal government for. They want them reduced by 15 per cent. I would like to see them reduced by 100 per cent, I say to the Premier. But, what I find hypocritical under the name Danny Williams, QC, he is asking for a 15 per cent cut in ferry rates on the ferry that is owned by the federal government. Yet, he just imposed a 25 per cent increase in ferry rates on the boats that he is responsible for in this Province after saying in the Blue Book and making the commitments on Fogo Island, on Ramea Island, and all the other islands in the Province during the election, that he was going to eliminate ferry rates and bring them inline with the cost of road transportation.

Well, on Fogo Island this weekend they were telling us all out there that the length of the ferry run from Fogo Island to Farewell is approximately four miles. By anyone's calculation, that is approximately - in driving any kind of a vehicle, you could do that for less than fifty cents. You could drive that for less than fifty cents. So, if you went by the Premier's commitment to the people who live on islands to which you have to travel on a ferry that this Premier operates, you would be paying fifty cents for that ride. We talked to an individual on the boat on Sunday morning who owns a transport truck and that trip costs him $152.50. That is what I say to those opposite. Now he has the unmitigated gall to ask the federal government for a 15 per cent decrease in ferry rates while he imposes a 25 per cent increase in ferry rates on the people of this Province. How hypocritical!

I support it fully, a reduction in the rates from the federal government on Marine Atlantic, but I also support people keeping commitments. I also support people keeping commitments because I do not like it when people get lied to, Madam Speaker. So, you are talking about: Does your party support these actions?

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, there is a well-known parliamentary rule that you cannot call anyone in the House a liar, either directly or impugn a motive, try to accomplish through the backdoor what you cannot do through the front.

Now, I would submit to you, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition just did. That in referencing the letter and talking about hypocritical behaviour - that is parliamentary, I guess, in terms of a tone. At times it is, at times it is not. But, when he goes on to say that he does not like people being lied to, then clearly, he has made an unparliamentary remark and he should be asked to withdraw.

MADAM SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition, would he withdraw -

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, what I am saying is that we support -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that - I have made a point. I think it deserves to be ruled upon. If you wish to rule upon it right away or if you wish to recess the House to look at it, that is clearly your prerogative, but I have made a point of order that needs to be dealt with on a remark made by the Leader of the Opposition and I ask respectfully that you make a ruling on that. How you want to do that is entirely up to yourself, or in the absence of a ruling, ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment and we will move on.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, I ask if you would withdraw the unparliamentary remark, please.

MR. REID: I do not know exactly what he is talking about, because, Madam Speaker, I did not call anybody a liar. I did not reference the Premier lying. I did not reference anybody lying. All I said is people do not liked to be lied to and I do not appreciate being lied to. But, Madam Speaker, if I have offended the sensibilities of those opposite, because they do not want to hear what I am saying, I will withdraw the statement.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to accomplish through the backdoor what he could not do through the front. He is referencing a letter signed by the Premier. Then he talks about the Premier being hypocritical, and then he said: Well, what I do not appreciate is people being lied to - in reference that people lied to people. Now, he cannot say that in the House. He cannot say it directly. Madam Speaker, he cannot say it directly or he cannot say it indirectly.

Now, if the Leader of the Opposition is going to withdraw, he has to do so in an unqualified way. He cannot stand up and say: Oh, if I have offended somebody I will withdraw. He has to say: I withdraw that remark unequivocally. It has to be that or you have to make a ruling, is my submission to you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, I ask the hon. member now to withdraw the remark unequivocally.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I withdraw the comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I was talking about ferry rates in the Province and I said that the Premier of this Province when to Fogo Island - and I guess he did it on other islands, I wasn't on these other islands at the time the election was held - and told the people of Fogo Island that he was going to eliminate ferry rates. Now, in the last two years we have seen them raised by 20 per cent and there is another 5 per cent going on it this year. I am not going to call that anything, Madam Speaker. How about if I say it is a commitment the Premier made. Maybe I will say, in other words, it was a commitment that the Premier made and a commitment that the Premier broke.

Now he is asking for the same thing from the federal Government of Canada, and I ask this question, Madam Speaker: I wonder, if he gets a letter back from the three leaders of the three parties in Ottawa and they all say, yes, we are going to give you a 15 per cent reduction in ferry rates and Marine Atlantic in this Province, I wonder how the Premier would feel three weeks or three months after the next federal election if all three of these, or either one of them that forms the government, were to write back here or go nationally and say, we have just increased the rates on Marine Atlantic by 25 per cent? I ask the members opposite: How do you think the Premier would feel? How do you think you would feel? You would be standing there today yelling and screaming and stamping and smacking your chests and tearing your hair out. Then, the poor people on Fogo Island, the people on Change Islands and every other Island in this Province - you sit idly by and say to the Premier: Yes, you are doing the right thing and you clap your desk when he announces a 25 per cent increase in ferries.

In closing, Madam Speaker, all I am saying is that we support what the Premier has on paper. We find some of it rather hypocritical as, I am sure, others in the Province will find it. Having said that, we say, yes, these are important issues to the Province, but I think that the Premier is two years behind the scene and that he should have been making representation to the federal government and the different departments in the federal government for the last two years on these issues, rather than paying lip service to it and saying: Oh, we mentioned that to them in passing, or I was on a plane with the Prime Minister or I was on a plane with the minister the other day and I mentioned that to him, with no follow-up and nothing put on paper. Anyone who has ever been elected knows that nothing happens in government until something formal is presented on a piece of paper. This, I say, is too little, too late.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this hon. House and make some comments about the letter which was sent by the Premier to the hon. Paul Martin, the Prime Minister of Canada, and to the House of Commons on November 28, 2005.

Madam Speaker, when this government took office the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador sent a clear message that they wanted to see change, and they wanted to see a new leadership and they wanted to see a new approach to the way the business of the Province was conducted. I want to commend the Premier for sending this letter to the Prime Minister, as well as to the other leaders of the other two political parties in Ottawa. I want to take a few minutes this afternoon, Madam Speaker, to talk about some of the points that the Premier has raised with the Prime Minister and the other party leaders in Ottawa. I want to particularly pay attention to parts of this letter that address some of the issues, particularly when it comes to Labrador.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to see new leadership, and I believe this is the type of leadership the people wanted. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who takes this document and agrees with everything that is in it, and yet tries to tear it apart, that is certainly not conducive, Madam Speaker, to sending the message to all parties in Ottawa, that these are not only concerns for this government on this side of the House, but indeed these are concerns of this House of Assembly. It would certainly be more productive to see the Leader of the Opposition stand up and support the Premier and support this government as we bring these points to the federal government, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker, that if indeed the people of the Province were happy with his leadership in the Opposition he would be higher in the polls today than what he is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of points here in this letter that I believe need to be addressed. Obviously, one that is very particular to me, to my district, indeed to Labrador, and indeed to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker, is the issue of energy. The Premier has addressed this to the Prime Minister and to the other party leaders in Ottawa and I want to take a few minutes to talk about this particular issue.

I want to quote what the Premier has said to the Prime Minister and to the leaders of the other parties in Ottawa. When it comes to energy - and I quote, Madam Speaker: "As you are aware, the Lower Churchill is a project of national significance, both from an economic development and an environmental perspective. This one project represents 5 % of Canada's total greenhouse emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Accord and would significantly strengthen the national electricity grid while greatly adding to security of supply in Eastern Canada."

The question to the Premier Minister and to the other party leaders the Premier put forward in this note says: Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River system for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of a federal government guarantee to proceed with the project?

It is most important, Madam Speaker, that the federal government realize the importance of the Lower Churchill Project to this Province, but, indeed, to this country. It is about time that the federal government take a look at this particular project and support this Province as we negotiate and go forward on a go-forward basis on the issue of the Lower Churchill. So, I think it is very important to put the federal government on notice on this particular issue, and it is a very, very important issue to the people of the Province and, indeed, to my district and to the people in Labrador.

The second issue I want to talk about, in this note to the Prime Minister, is a section on Labrador. I want to take some time this afternoon to specifically talk about some of the points that the Premier has raised and particularly, as it relates to Labrador.

Madam Speaker, in the note to the Prime Minister, and I quote the Premier's comments, "The key to the economic progress of Labrador is the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was pleased with the Federal Government's decision to add the Trans-Labrador Highway to the National Highway System. The time has come for the Federal Government to commit to the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway, in partnership with the province." The question to the Prime Minister and to the other government leaders is: Does your party support a federal-provincial cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway?

I want to talk, Madam Speaker, about the good work that was recently done by the then Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when it comes to getting the Trans-Labrador Highway and other key roads in the Province brought in under the national highway system. The Minister of Transportation and Works has been successful in ensuring, along with his other provincial ministers and counterparts, they have persuaded the federal government that indeed the Trans-Labrador Highway is worthy of becoming part and under the national highway system, and it is about time.

It is about time, as we go into this election, that the federal government make a commitment as to their share because right now, Madam Speaker, the federal government has not said to the Province - they have not given one cent toward this project so far. We expect - I can tell you, I expect as a member from Labrador - to see an agreement which allows us to pay for chip seal, 100 kilometres a year for ten years. That is what our dream is, so that we would see a completed highway from Labrador West to The Straits in ten years, paved; so that we could have access by a paved highway to the new Mealey Mountain National Park and to the newly formed Torngat National Park. This will bring tourists into Labrador, Madam Speaker. This is not just a Labrador project, as I have always said in comments I have made on this particular issue. This is not a Labrador project. This is an Atlantic Canada project, because all of Atlantic Canada, Madam Speaker, will benefit from the Trans-Labrador Highway and the benefits that come with it.

I want to take particular attention, Madam Speaker, when it comes to the issue of 5 Wing Goose Bay. I want to make some comments, certainly in light of the comments that the Leader of the Opposition made earlier. You know, I think he forgets about this file, because I can tell you, when the previous government was in place, Madam Speaker - and I remember when I was the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and served on the council there, it was always a struggle to get the Premier of the day to pick up and to champion 5 Wing Goose Bay with their federal counterparts. I can tell you, they did nothing, Madam Speaker. The crowd on the other side did nothing when it came to 5 Wing Goose Bay.

I remember one time, Madam Speaker, when I made the call to the then Deputy Minister of Labrador Affairs, when I heard that the then Premier was travelling to Germany. I said to the deputy minister: Would you please ensure that the Premier pays a courtesy call to the German Air Force while in Germany to show his appreciation for the flying that they are doing in Labrador, and for the economic benefits that our Province derived from 5 Wing Goose Bay, and for the flying that they are doing there, Madam Speaker.

Well, Madam Speaker, guess what? The Premier of the day went over to Germany but he certainly did not stop in and say thank you to the German Air Force. He came back and they did nothing. I want to say that, in all the days that I have dealt with the 5 Wing Goose Bay file and our base in Goose Bay, this Premier has done more to champion this file than any previous Premier in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: He has shown great leadership on this particular file and it is still an important issue to this government on this side of the House and it is indeed, certainly, a big file for me.

I want to talk for a few minutes about the announcements that happened in Happy Valley-Goose Bay just a couple of days ago. I will say to you that there was some good stuff in some of those announcements, Madam Speaker, but I will also say that I was bitterly disappointed when we saw absolutely no reference to a permanent operational requirement by the Department of National Defence to 5 Wing Goose Bay. That was one of the things that we were all looking for.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, just speaking with the Mayor, Mayor Leo Abbass, just a day or so ago, after his meeting with Chief of the Defence Staff, General Hillier, again it was reiterated by the Chief of the Defence Staff that although the Department of National Defence may be out there marketing the base, there is no operational requirement for 5 Wing Goose Bay. I think that is a travesty and I think that we deserve, as a Province, more federal presence when it comes to the Department of National Defence, Madam Speaker. This Province provides 10 per cent of the men and women in human resources to the Canadian Forces and we receive less than 1 per cent of the defence budget of this country. It is completely unacceptable, Madam Speaker, and we expect more at 5 Wing Goose Bay. We are expecting a full operational requirement for that base.

When we talk about sovereignty in the north, what better place to put a quick reaction force than at 5 Wing Goose Bay, a base that is worth $1 billion, with all new infrastructure, rebuilt infrastructure, some of the longest runways anywhere in the Eastern Coast of North America. We have the infrastructure, and the federal government deserves to give us better than that. When I talk about 5 Wing Goose Bay, I also want to talk about the fact that, although -

MS JONES: What did you do?

MR. HICKEY: I say to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I have fought for this base long before you were ever in politics, I would tell my hon. friend and colleague across the way from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

I will say this: This a very, very important file for our Province. It is a very, very important file for Labrador. I will tell you that we will continue to press the federal government to make a federal commitment, an operational requirement so that we see soldiers, aircraft belonging to the Canadian military, stationed at 5 Wing Goose Bay, and that is our goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: The last point I want to raise, Madam Speaker, is the issue which the Premier raises with the Prime Minister, and I quote, "The Provincial Government has been working with the Federal Government and the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation to establish a reserve at Sheshatshiu, as committed to by the Federal Government in the year 2000. Both the Provincial Government and the Innu wish for this reserve to be created as soon a possible. Does your party support establishing a reserve at Sheshatshiu by June 30, 2006?"

I want say this is also a very, very important issue for me and for my district. The creation of a reserve at Sheshatshiu will allow the Innu people, the community, to move forward with their own education, housing, and to improve the life of the Innu people living in that community. I impress upon the federal government to act quickly and co-operatively with this government and with the Innu so that we see a reserve created in the community of Sheshatshiu, as was done in the community of Natuashish.

While we are on Aboriginal issues, I also want to pay reference to the Labrador Metis. I will tell you that is has been very disappointing for me, as an MHA with a large population of Metis in my district, that we as a government - and I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in November of last year wrote Andy Scott, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, requesting a meeting to talk about health care and education benefits for the Labrador Metis. That was on November 18 of last year. To this date, today, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has not heard from the federal minister on health care and education benefits for the Labrador Metis. I can tell you, this is a huge issue for the Metis of Labrador. This is a huge issue for me, and this is a huge issue that we need to resolve with the federal government.

The sooner the federal government realizes that health care and education benefits are so very important, I can tell you, to the seniors and the elders who come into my office needing health care, this would be a huge, huge piece for them. This would be a huge cost that would be covered by the federal government, as is done with other Aboriginal people across the nation, Madam Speaker.

I think the Premier showed great leadership in putting this letter forward. I can tell you, the proof is in the pudding. The strategy has worked before. I say to the hon. members across the way, this is good strategy. Let's put the federal government and the federal leaders on the record as to the issues dealing with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It is about quarter to five. I know that some days last week we adjourned early, and I want to put the adjournment motion forward now and we will return tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. to debate the motion put forward by the Member for Gander dealing with the Gander Weather Office. Then, I guess, after that, we will be back on Thursday to return to the exciting debate that has been occurring this afternoon.

Thanks very much.

MADAM SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House do now adjourn until 2:00 o'clock on tomorrow, Wednesday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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