May 12, 2008               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLVI   No. 25


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

On May 8, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of order relating to a line of questioning by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government House Leader suggested that it is not in order to question ministers about matters not within the purview of their departments.

The Government House Leader is absolutely correct. Questions directed to ministers must concern matters for which they are responsible. Marleau and Montpetit, page 426, Beauchesne's 6th Edition, §409 and Erskine May 26th Edition, page 298. It is also the case that a question must not seek to elicit an opinion, legal or otherwise, page 427 of Marleau and Montpetit. Nor should a question seek information which relates to any other presumed functions of a minister, such as regional responsibilities - from Beauchesne's 5th Edition, §351.

I ask all hon. members if they would bear these points in mind when formulating their questions.

Members' statements today are from the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance and the recent grant awarded to this organization through our Province's Wellness Program.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone will agree with me when I say that it is vital to encourage our young people to participate in sport. The good habits of exercise and fitness that our youth develop at a young age will serve them well as they move into adulthood. There is an obvious problem in North America with respect to obesity and associated health issues. Organizations such as the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance assist in ensuring that children are given the opportunity to be active and are recognized for their achievements in sport. This recognition sometimes is the driving force behind keeping kids interested in athletics.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance in the development of its Wellness Program. I also recognize the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance for the positive work it does on a daily basis by offering support to those with an avid interest in minor sport.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 9, 2008, I had the pleasure of attending the annual dinner of the Trinity Conception Youth Justice Committee. The event took place at the Lions Club in Bay Roberts, who were the sponsors and hosts for the event.

The objective of the executive and board members is to keep youth between the ages of twelve and seventeen, to avoid becoming involved with the court system.

Mr. Speaker, representing the Minister of Justice as guest speaker, was the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North, and we had the opportunity to wish him a happy thirtieth birthday in the wonderful district of Port de Grave.

Chairperson, Mr. Melvin Harnum, outlined the need for more volunteers in some areas, and every effort will be made to recruit additional individuals as trained volunteers.

The Trinity Conception youth justice system is committed to our youth and offers an alternative to them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to the Trinity Conception Youth Justice Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a young woman from my district by the name of Juliette Dupre, a student at St. Lawrence Academy.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Dupre currently attends Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, Victoria, with the assistance of the Pearson Scholarship, from our Department of Education, valued at $66,000.

Ms Dupre has amassed an impressive resume, Mr. Speaker, while still at the young age of seventeen years.

In August 2007, she was recognized for her efforts at Sea Cadet Camp, HMCS Acadia, including: first place in the HMCS Acadia Effective Speaking Competition; the Veterans Association medal for Excellence as Top Cadet; and the Lieutenant Al Hicks Memorial Scholarship.

In November 2007, Mr. Speaker, while attending Pearson College, she was the recipient of the Most Diplomatic Delegation Award.

In December 2007, she was named Student of the Year at St. Lawrence Academy, and most recently, Mr. Speaker, she was the recipient of a $7,000 bursary which will allow her to intern at the legal department of the Standard Chartered Bank in London, England.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous accomplishment, and all of us from the district are proud of Juliette and her achievements.

I ask all hon. members to join me today in offering congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in this great House to honour a young lady, Danika Wheeler, a Level III student at St. James All Grade School in Lark Harbour.

Recently Danika was awarded the Doctor Leslie Harris Memorial University Alumni Scholarship. Mr. Speaker, the scholarship is valued at $16,000 or $4,000 per year and it is awarded on the basis of her academic record, school leadership and other activities.

She is an instructor for the Red Cross Water Safety Program, has a black belt in Karate and is a member of the Senior Girls Volleyball Team. Danika was also awarded the Canada Day Youth Award in 2006.

This young lady, Mr. Speaker, is a top achiever in everything she attempts. Danika plans to attend Sir Wilfred Grenfell College this coming September and is thinking of a career in Chemical Engineering.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to honour the achievements of this bright young lady and to wish her well in her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to offer congratulations to a number of influential Aboriginal women and youth who are broadening their horizons while celebrating and preserving their Aboriginal ancestry.

Mr. Speaker, during the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Awards Show and Gala on May 3, Mary Ann Penashue of Sheshatshiu received the Emerging Artist Award. Ms Penashue is a true inspiration to Aboriginal women and artists throughout our Province. She started drawing at a very young age, but it was not until 1995 that she started to paint. Her work embodies the Innu people, including young children and elders of past generations.

Mr. Speaker, when we see news headlines that express a positive change in any community, I think it is important we acknowledge it here in this hon. House. This coming June we will see two Innu youth graduate high school in Natuashish, the first graduating students from that community in twelve years. Shekau Piwas and Desiree Andrew will graduate from Mushuau Innu Natuashish School. These students are important role models for the younger children of Natuashish and will no doubt inspire future high school graduates.

Mr. Speaker, in its current issue, Downhome magazine tells the story of two young Aboriginal women working hard to preserve their native heritage, "bettering the lives of Aboriginal people."

Vanessa Webb of Nain and Julie Bull of Happy Valley–Goose Bay were recently chosen, along with twelve other individuals, out of more than 150 candidates, to be role models by the National Aboriginal Health Organization's National Aboriginal Role Model Program. Our Aboriginal youth are setting a positive example that is inspiring young people across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when our youth are presented with positive role models, they see in them a guide in the pursuit of personal excellence and achievement. Recently, Minister Kennedy and I had the opportunity to visit much of the North Coast of Labrador and meet our partnering northern government, Nunatsiavut. While in Rigolet, we had the great pleasure to meet and speak with several youth taking part in the fifteenth annual Labrador Inuit Youth Symposium.

Mr. Speaker, this forum provides youth an opportunity to learn about the Nunatsiavut Government with presentations from several departments. The Labrador Inuit Youth Symposium is instilling the confidence in these young people that will enable them to pursue many career opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, Aboriginal people continue to contribute to the arts, the culture, and the growing economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important to celebrate the efforts of individuals who are such an inspiration to us. I ask the hon. members present to join me in extending congratulations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

First of all, I want to extend congratulations to all the individuals that she mentioned here, who have had tremendous accomplishments within their own right. I want to specifically acknowledge Mary Ann Penashue, whom I have known and whose work I have become familiar with over the years, who indeed has tremendous artistic ability. I am pleased to see that ability is being recognized and certainly being rewarded.

I think Mary Ann has captured the very essence of Innu culture in the work that she does, in her paintings. The expression of the faces of the Innu children and Elders is very dominant in understanding the story and the struggles of the Innu people of Labrador and the many challenges that they face, but have done so not only in the face of adversity but with tremendous belief in spirituality and being guided by that spirituality.

I specifically want to acknowledge the graduates of Natuashish. Mr. Speaker, this is a community itself that has seen tremendous transition over the past ten years as they resettled into a new community and into a new school filled with new opportunity and new education programs.

I am very pleased today, to congratulate these two young women and to say that indeed they are role models in Innu society and Innu culture in this Province. I am very proud of what they have accomplished, as I am sure many others are throughout the Province. I think that their mere graduation will indeed be an event that will mark the transition for other students in the education system within the Innu culture.

I certainly applaud the other individuals that she has mentioned here. I do not think time permits me to have further comment, but just to say that there are a lot of role models in Aboriginal communities within our Province and it is nice to see that two of those have been highlighted by the minister today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I am delighted to join with you, Minister, in acknowledging the individuals that you have acknowledged in your statement.

I, too, am so pleased with the award that Mary Ann Penashue won last week, and I was delighted to be there that night at the gala when she received that award.

I think one of the most important things that you can do in your ministry, and that government can do, is to continue supporting education that will be education that will come from the culture of the Aboriginal peoples themselves; because, as we can see from what you presented here today, their culture is rich and, as my colleague has said, there are so many role models there.

An educational system that is accessible, affordable, that is culturally appropriate, will result in many more individuals reaching the achievements of the individuals that you spoke about here today, so I encourage you to continue working in particular with Aboriginal women's organizations who came up with such wonderful recommendations last year at the June conference in 2007, and I applaud you for your recognition of these individuals today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is hosting the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, or CCMTA, this week. This is an important meeting which draws over 300 delegates representing federal, provincial and territorial government officials, representatives from the American Association of Motor Transport Administrators and industry partners.

CCMTA is a not-for-profit organization engaged in the co-ordination of highway safety initiatives and policies as well as harmonization of legislation pertaining to driver licensing, vehicle registration, and movement of commercial vehicles throughout North America. One of the initiatives of CCMTA is Road Safety Vision 2010, a national road safety plan, which aims to make Canada's roads the safest in the world. The objective of this plan is to achieve a 30 per cent reduction in highway deaths and serious injuries by 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this Province has been an active participant of CCMTA and Road Safety Vision 2010 for many years, and that we are the host Province for this important conference.

This year's theme for the CCMTA annual meeting is "Road Safety: Our Vision/Our Leadership". This theme ties in the principles of Road Safety Vision 2010 as it demonstrates that road safety vision is our collective vision and it urgently requires our collective leadership in order to meet the ambitious targets we have set for 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the CCMTA annual meeting is an important week-long conference that will bring significant tourism and related revenue into the Province, and offers us the opportunity to showcase our beautiful Province and culture.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, Canada Road Safety Week, which runs from May 12-19, is always launched to coincide with the CCMTA annual meeting. This morning, I joined the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the RCMP, and the President of CCMTA, who is Newfoundland and Labrador's Registrar of Motor Registration, to launch this week.

Canada Road Safety Week is an opportunity for us to promote safe driving practices. All too often we hear about tragedies on our roads. They are often called accidents but most are preventable. The loss of life and the loss of quality of living is enormous, and all us - government, police agencies and our citizens - need to work together to reduce these collisions which can change lives forever.

With the help of our safety partners, it is my sincerest hope that the message is heard - that safety on our highways must come first, and all drivers play a part in ensuring that happens. The CCMTA conference and Canada Road Safety Week certainly highlights this important message.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We want to also welcome the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators to our Province, all 300 of them. Hopefully, they will get the time to travel to the beautiful Conception Bay North area while they are here.

I think it is very timely as well today to announce Canada Road Safety Week. I guess we can never do too much when it comes to safety on our roads, or any place in the workplace. I read recently that someone made the comment, "I don't wear seat belts because they are uncomfortable." The reply came back, "If you think seat belts are uncomfortable, try lying on a spinal board for a few hours." I guess that is what it comes down to, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, at this time, to say to the minister – I know he is doing research and is always interested in making our roads safer - maybe it is a good time now to meet with his colleagues from right across the country, those people, while they are here, and get some feedback, and hopefully in 2009 we will be able to implement winter tires.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for his statement.

While I will not talk about winter tires, I will talk about the other issue that I have been speaking about to you, and that is the fact of our not having universally acceptable 911 service in this Province.

I bring the minister's attention to the latest campaign of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Their campaign for this year, right now, is called Campaign 911. What it does is urge Canadians to report impaired driving. So, if they see somebody who looks like they are impaired, they call 911 and they can report that person, and that person can be checked out.

Unfortunately, as we know, in this Province only three small areas are covered by 911, so I could not miss the opportunity, Mr. Minister, to remind you of that and to urge you to put a real urgency into the studies that you are doing with regard to making 911 Province-wide.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier today.

Some weeks ago, in the House of Assembly, the Premier said he was not sure if he should answer any further questions related to the Cameron inquiry because it might be seen as interference; however, recent comments by the Premier stating that the inquiry has become a prosecution certainly leads one to believe he has had a change of heart, I would think. Passing this judgement, Mr. Speaker, has added nothing to the inquiry other than being political and having political interference.

I ask the Premier: Why would you make these statements that are nothing more than an attempt to undermine the integrity of the Cameron inquiry that is ongoing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me state for the record that there is absolutely no intention whatsoever to undermine the integrity of the Cameron inquiry. The reason I make these statements is out of a genuine concern for the patients, for the citizens of this Province, and for the health care system in this Province.

Last Thursday I attended a meeting, together with the Minister of Health, with some twenty-eight doctors, pathologists and oncologists, and came out of that meeting with a very, very genuine and a very deep concern about where our health care system was going as a result of this inquiry. You could see, from these doctors, that particular division of the health care system was basically a house of cards; that, in fact, it was in a very serious situation; that these doctors were reaching out to us for assistance; and, of course, concerns were actually expressed to me by doctors in that room that patients were being adversely affected by the inquisitorial tone - and when I say inquisitorial tone, it was under the terms of the Spanish Inquisition - that was actually the term that was used to me by a doctor in that room. So, I reflected their concerns and I have decided to reflect them publicly to make sure that the inquiry was being conducted in a proper manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we did, this morning, talk to the Newfoundland Medical Association and other pathologists as well because we were trying to get an understanding of where government was coming from. They assured us this morning that they are very supportive of this inquiry and the process that it has been taking.

I ask you again, Premier: Why do you feel that limiting information, true questioning at this inquiry is going to be of any help to patients or others that you refer to at the end of the day?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have to look no further than the top corner of The Telegram today - and I will not read from The Telegram, but I will paraphrase what was said in that top corner. It came from a second year medical student. He basically said: "Watching fantastic physicians having their good names and reputations called into question is not a ringing endorsement of our province as a place to start a career."

Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, there will be forty graduates - forty-three, I think, if I remember correctly - oncology and pathology graduates that will graduate in all of Canada this year. Ontario needs fifty - that is one Province.

So we are a Province here that is going through this inquiry, going through a difficult time, under extreme scrutiny. We have three pathologists that have already left. Perhaps the indication from these physicians that in fact more are going to leave, and what we are really trying to do is to make sure that this service is provided, and the best possible service in this division is provided for patients in Newfoundland and Labrador on a go-forward basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I just want clarity from the Premier, and that is: Are you saying that this inquiry is now contributing to the factor that there are less pathologists in this Province, and that is the reason they are leaving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we called this inquiry ourselves. I stood outside this House and admitted liability, and a question that was put to me by a reporter as to whether we would have a defence on liability in this matter, we indicated that - I indicated that no, I did not feel there would be a defence to liability.

So we have done everything we can here to facilitate the patients, to make sure that this is wound up as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible. If, in fact, this inquiry now goes on until February of 2009, it will be delayed even more. These patients will be even longer getting the answers. The lawsuits that will follow from that will take even longer, their compensation will take even longer.

What we are trying to do is to get the answers as soon as possible, nothing more than that. There is no other intention here, but what I am taking advice, or I guess guidance from, was the meeting that we had with the doctors, whereby these very doctors, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition quotes, indicated to me that they are very, very concerned that if this type of scrutiny continues in the manner in which it is being done, we will lose even more doctors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only repeat what doctors have told me, and that is that they are supportive of the inquiry. As difficult as it is, they know that the answers have to be found and that this process needs to take place - and I have certainly never heard them call it a witch hunt in any way.

I ask the Premier - he is to testify at this inquiry, as I understand: Do you think it is appropriate that you would be out making these comments prior to being a witness?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have never backed away from saying the tough things that have to be said in this Province, if we consider it to be in the best interest of the people of this Province. Nothing is more important than health care, in my opinion, in this Province. As well, you can certainly rest assured that by making the statements that I have made, that I have done nothing to endear myself to the Cameron inquiry and/or its counsel down there. So what I have, in fact, done is probably made my own job, my own testimony even more difficult.

Having said that, what we are going through here - and you need to understand it, is the commissioner, Madam Justice Cameron, has set rules of procedure and practice which she herself laid out for the conduct of that inquiry. What we are saying is that counsel are not conducting themselves in accordance with those rules of practice and procedure which have been laid down by Madam Justice Cameron. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have every right, legally and practically, to challenge that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier will know that this is the third public inquiry in our Province over the past several years. Each inquiry has had a heated exchange in cross-examination. I am sure the Minister of Justice would know that. We heard an excerpt from him this morning on CBC.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Premier: What is being done differently at this inquiry that has him and his ministers so upset, that was not happening at previous inquiries in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I appreciate - and I am not trying to be disrespectful. I appreciate that the learned member of the Opposition may not understand the legal aspects of this, and I am not trying to diminish your question in any way.

Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure says that commission counsel will adduce the evidence from the witness. Now, the adducing of evidence is defined by Black's Legal Dictionary as bringing forward, offering or introducing the evidence.

It is not the role - and the hon. Member for Burgeo-LaPoile who shakes his head, knows that it is not the role of commission counsel to cross-examine. It is the role of commission counsel, as defined by Madam Justice Cameron, to adduce the evidence, to bring it forward. It would be the role of Mr. Ches Crosbie, who represents the victims down there, to cross-examine. It would be the role of other counsel down there to cross-examine. What is, in fact, happening down there is a cross-examination of witnesses, and hence my comment that this is in fact a prosecution. What has happened, we have had a period where five witnesses, and only five witnesses have been dealt with in eighteen days and some of those witnesses are still on the stand. There is now a request for another eighty witnesses and an extension out to February. We want to make sure that, if that happens, it is done according to the rules established by Madam Justice Cameron.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I understand that government has their own counsel at this inquiry.

I have to ask: Why would it be your job, Premier, or the Attorney General's job, in this Province, to be doing that kind of work? Why is it not being left to the counsel that you appointed, that you are paying to represent government at this inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is exactly what we have done. This morning, representation was made by counsel for government of an application which would have the substance, basically, of just what I said. It is an application to have Madam Justice Cameron determine whether Crown Counsel Bernard Coffey, or co-counsel, are able to conduct a cross-examination without leave from the Commissioner.

In fact, that application has been made by Ms Jackie Brazil. She did that this morning. She has been instructed by Madam Justice Cameron to file a written brief, which she will file tomorrow, as counsel for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Opposing parties will have, and co-parties will also have, another three days to respond; and, at the end of the long weekend, Madam Justice Cameron will make a ruling on this very issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, Jackie Brazil, who we know is an employee with the Department of Justice, made the petition to the Cameron inquiry this morning at the direction of yourself and the Department of Justice; is that my understanding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Ms Brazil works for the Department of Justice. She is acting on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Myself, the Attorney General, and the members of Cabinet are the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. She is acting on behalf of the government. She is representing the interests of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; but, more particularly, she is representing the interests of every patient - past, present and future - in the health care system in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that is the process and this is the issue, why was Ms Brazil or someone else in the Department of Justice not directed to have this intervention prior to yourself and the Minister of Justice out undermining the integrity of the Commission in the last three to four days?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: For those of us that have viewed some of the proceeding during the course of the hearings, this representation has been made by several counsels at various points in time throughout this hearing.

The Department of Justice felt that it was time to have this formally presented to the Commissioner on the basis that Crown counsel – or, I am sorry – Commission counsel, was in fact going outside the rules.

It was important that we have this brought to the attention of the Commissioner and we, in fact, asked for a ruling. There have, in fact, been objections made and I understand that those objections have been overruled.

A big concern here is that if this matter goes on until the end of February next year, that we are going to have trouble, as a government, trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My other question is with regard to the Attorney General's comments in the public airwaves on Friday, I think it was. I am just wondering if he was directed by yourself, Premier, to make those statements on behalf of government in your defence.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of the way this matter was being portrayed on Open Line on Friday morning and Friday afternoon, I determined that it was appropriate to outline for the public exactly what was taking place, and to bring home the point that the day before we had received a request to extend the filing of the report until February 28, 2009. So, I took it upon myself to clarify government's position and to reinforce that the Premier, in my opinion, had every right to make the comments that he made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen a couple of delays since the Cameron inquiry started. First of all, there was a delay because of the court case, the intervention by Eastern Health, then again because of information being searched in government departments and new information coming forward. We know that Justice Cameron has now requested an extension to February, and I ask the Premier if he is prepared to grant that extension to allow this process to be completed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, I want to make it clear, it is certainly not our intention, under any circumstances, to shut down this inquiry. I want to make that absolutely clear.

The letter came in last Thursday from Madam Justice Cameron. July 31 was the original deadline, a previous extension had been asked for November, and now another extension has been asked for February. We are told that eighty more witnesses are to come. We know that the last five witnesses took twenty days. If you want to do the math on that, it is going to go well beyond February.

What we will do is, we will go back to Madam Justice Cameron and ask her to give us a detailed breakdown of where it is going from a chronological perspective, where it is going from a cost perspective, because we have a situation right now where one of the Commission counsel to date has billed $412,000 to the end of March - March 31.

We see these costs being very high, but if they are justified then we do not have any problem with that, but we will be going back to Madam Justice Cameron asking her for a detail presentation on the reasons for the extension.

As to trying to shut down the inquiry, absolutely not, we certainly would not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier will know that public inquiries are never cheap. We have seen some in this Province cost anywhere from $7 million to $11 million, in public inquiries. I am not saying that this would be the same thing, but his own words, Mr. Speaker, in October 2003 when the Lamer Inquiry was ongoing, the Premier said that his primary objective was to restore the public confidence in the judicial system in this Province.

Now, Premier, the primary objective in this Cameron inquiry was to restore public confidence in the health care system. Based on that premise, based on your own statements, will you not commit today to give the extension to Justice Cameron to complete her work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is just the point. The whole question for us, as a government, is the restoring of confidence in the health care system. We are concerned that it may deteriorate, it may be eroded, it may get to a point where we could never restore it to even the condition it is in today. That is why we are so concerned about this Commission being conducted in a proper manner.

If Mr. Coffey or Ms Chaytor, as counsel down there, are prepared to play within the rules and deal with the rules that are laid down by Madam Justice Cameron, and keep their examination efficient and in accordance with the rules, then there should be absolutely no problem; but, when the rules are set out, you have to play by the rules and we do not ask for any more than that.

With regard to the health care system, at the end of this process we want to make sure that the patients and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have absolute confidence in the health care system.

We are very, very seriously concerned that if this goes on until February, and the reputations of half of the other eighty people that are brought before the Commission is damaged or tarnished or destroyed, then we will not be able to recruit doctors to this Province to take care of our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the most recent comments that we have heard from the Premier regarding the Cameron inquiry are his comments, I guess, attacking the testimony of a witness and discrediting their statements.

Now, I do not know if there is anything in the inquiry that says that is not a rule, that witnesses cannot provide whatever information they choose, but we certainly see this as an intimidating process for many witnesses that are coming to the stand.

I ask, Premier: Why would you feel the need to go out there and attack witnesses, intimidating statements that could be provided by witnesses in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What I want to make sure is that witnesses who come before that inquiry are not attacked, are not intimidated, are not disparaged, and do not have their reputations destroyed by Commission counsel who are not acting within the rules of procedure set down by Madam Justice Cameron. At the end of the day, she is ultimately responsible for this Commission of Inquiry and she will conduct it in the manner which she sees fit.

As a practicing lawyer of over thirty-odd years I can state here quite honestly that we have absolutely every single right in the world to go before that Commission of Inquiry, point out the rule that she inaugurated herself and ask her for her interpretation of how her counsel should conduct themselves within those rules. That is a perfectly legitimate request. The concern of intimidation is a concern of intimidation by improper actions of Commission counsel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier feels that those actions are not appropriate inside the Cameron Inquiry, but it is exactly what he has been doing outside in attacking the personality of individuals like Mr. Abbott based on the testimony they have given.

Do you think that is appropriate conduct, Mr. Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the hon. member opposite or Mr. Abbott or anybody else says that this government forms policy by what they hear on open lines, then I will have a say about that. This government has a long-term strategic plan for this Province. Whether this government is in power at that time or some other party is in party at that particular point in time we are trying to do the best we can for the long-term interests of this Province. So, what Randy Simms says or Bill Rowe says or anybody else says doesn't matter to us, I can tell you right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier if he is saying that no one in his government, him, his staff or his officials, give key messages to open line callers to call in to influence public opinion in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can assure you that while we are in government there is no one within our staff in the Premier's office who has phoned up under two or three different names and pretended they were someone else and made representation as the hon. government opposite did when they were in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whether it is one person or ten different people, I ask the Premier again, have you, your staff or anyone inside your government given notes of key points to be addressed on open line shows to callers in order to influence public opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Every time I get on Open Line I get a note.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a final question for the Premier, and that is: Can the Premier tell us how much government has spent to date on Open Line transcripts related to the ER-PR issue? Can he confirm today whether there is a standing order agreement to receive those transcripts and if you would be willing to table that information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is no standing order agreement and I cannot tell you how much has been spent on transcripts.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, you wear two hats, one as the Minister of Justice and one as the Attorney General. I heard what you had to say on the Open Line show on Friday afternoon and I subsequently stated my opinion, I thought it was absolutely inappropriate.

I ask the minister: Do you think it is appropriate that as the Attorney General, the person who is perceived or supposed to be perceived in this Province as absolutely fair and impartial, should be giving any opinions about the conduct of a commission of inquiry while it is ongoing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday past I received a letter seeking an extension of time for the Cameron inquiry. The inquiry was originally meant to file its report by July 30 of this year. Now, we know there were some delays. Then in this letter I see reference to the fact that nineteen witnesses have testified over twenty-nine days. When I break that down a little bit further we get eleven witnesses in the first four days and then eight witnesses in the last five weeks, the last twenty-five days. Now, Mr. Speaker, that causes me concern. My role is to ensure that the justice system works as fairly, as efficiently and as thoroughly as possible. So like the Premier, I make no apologies for bringing this to the attention of the public and I see that as my role, because if not, sir, at the end of the day, with eighty more witnesses, the inquiry will never finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is absolutely unheard of in the judicial democratic system, that a Minister of Justice, Attorney General is out commenting on a judicial inquiry, certainly from a monetary point of view. Minister, you stood up here and lectured me on inquiries 101 a couple of weeks ago, and you are familiar with the phrase that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

I say to the minister, again: Are you seriously suggesting that the Cameron inquiry, which was struck by government to get at the truth of this situation, might now possibly be even limited because of time or money? Seriously.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I do not mean to lecture the hon. member, but the quote is not that justice must not only be done but it must be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. That is the quote, sir.

Now, in relation to what you are saying. I do not know the Opposition House Leader's experience as a lawyer. I do not know what he did in terms of big trials or big inquiries, but let us not confuse lengthy examination with thorough, effective and efficient examination. When I see a witness who is on the stand again today, who spent five days already and now he is back for two more. Again, I reiterate, that as the Attorney General, my role is to protect the integrity of the system of justice, and as the Premier has pointed out, there is question as to whether or not that is being done. Follow the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is again for the minister. Minister, we heard about how some lawyers who appear before big night-time inquiries acted. We saw that this morning or heard it on CBC Radio, namely yourself. We heard your comments. You did not mind back then, Mr. Minister, you did not mind then having very intensive cross-examination of witnesses to the point where the commission, Justice Lamer, had to bring you up short.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Now what has changed, when Mr. Coffey wanting to get the tough questions so he can get at the bottom and get at the truth here. What has changed since 2004 when you did it yourself?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I say to the hon. member, my role has changed. Secondly, I say, Inquiries 101, I was cross-examining. That is what my role was. I was allowed to do that. If Mr. Crosbie were cross-examining as counsel for the patients, fair enough. Thirdly, what we saw this morning with that excerpt is exactly the point we are making. Commissioner Lamer took control of the proceeding and he put counsel in their place. So at the end of the day, commissioner counsel did exactly what he was supposed to do. Fourthly, I say to the Opposition House Leader, it would not take me five days to ask questions I never needed to ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Still on the same topic of the inquiry, many people were very surprised and disappointed to hear the terms witch hunt and prosecutorial coming from the Premier last Thursday evening after meeting with the doctors. Mr. Speaker, the health care system has been struggling with issues of recruitment and retention of doctors and other health care professionals long before the Commission of Inquiry.

I ask the Premier: Is the government trying to avoid the fact that it has not properly invested in recruitment and retention of health care professionals by laying blame on the Commission of Inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. I will give the same answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. We called the inquiry. We have admitted liability under the inquiry. We are extremely concerned about the continuity and the future of the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our concern is the patients; it is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Respectfully, you stand up everyday, or every second day, and you express concerns about the health care system. How are we to possibly try and put, as I said, Humpty Dumpty back together again if that confidence is completely eroded by an inquiry that is not being conducted by Commission counsel in an improper manner? When I made that statement, I had just left a room with over two dozen doctors in that room, some of whom had expressed to me their very, very serious concern about the manner in which that inquiry was being conducted; hence, the comment in The Telegram today from a second year student who wonders whether this is a good place to practice medicine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier respectively, there are over 300 women out there who are also looking for answers. Those women, many of them, have been saying publicly since Friday that they want the work of this Commission to continue. They want the questions to continue as they are.

Will you assure that the Commission will get to continue its work so that these women can get their answers, because they too are under stress?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We will absolutely assure that. We rely on Madam Justice Cameron to form the conclusions to give the reasons, which is exactly why we asked her to do this in the first place. We have to make sure that they do it in accordance with the rules. It is one thing to get to the bottom of this and get the answers and then it is another thing to completely destroy fifty reputations on your way through. That not only affects the people who have to attend before that inquiry, and very good people have attended before that inquiry, but they do not have the right to be completed disparaged on the stand. Commission counsel does not have the right to do that. The patients are very competently represented by Mr. Crosbie, and Mr. Crosbie has the right to cross-examine and get to the bottom of it.

My concern, as I said before in earlier questions, is that these patients will get the answers quicker, they will get their compensation quicker, they will get some relief quicker, the more efficiently that this inquiry is conducted and the quicker that it is concluded. However, having said that, and I have always said it before, if Madam Justice -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If Madam Justice needs more time, then she will certainly have more time. We are just asking Commission counsel to play by the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to take it on record that the Premier has said Madam Justice will get the time.

I am really concerned about the effect of what you said has had on the women and the families who have been affected by this whole issue. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker - I am asking you, actually - if you will stand and make an apology to the women and the families for the rash comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is pure, raw politics at its very best, what you are playing over there now. I would expect a lot better from you; I really would. You disappoint me so much when you go there.

I would have expected it from the previous Liberal government, the previous Liberal Opposition, because they stoop to that all the time. It would not have happened in Jack Harris' day, I can assure you of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

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. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS MICHAEL: Do you want to go first, Tom?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Yes, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administrative Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notions of motion.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, this Wednesday being Private Members' Day for Opposition, through an agreement with the House Leader, I give notice of a private member's motion to be heard this Wednesday, moved by myself, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

 

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are increasingly concerned at the state of health care services and delivery in our Province; and

WHEREAS the crumbling infrastructure of health care facilities has been revealed and remains an acute issue that must be addressed, including sprinkler systems installed in personal care homes and hospital facilities to meet fire code; and

WHEREAS the citizens of this Province have been subjected to a barrage of news that has shaken their trust in the health care system, including the impact on women with breast cancer and their families as a result of the faulty breast cancer receptor testing in St. John's, and the revelation that 322 breast cancer patients had received questionable tests between 1997 and 2005; and

WHEREAS the inaccuracies of radiology tests have unsettled patients and their families and created costs for the system as some 6,000 tests had to be reviewed and in some cases repeated; and

WHEREAS there is a health human resources crisis with all health care professionals in the system and the Province has an aging skilled trades workforce; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has an aging population; and

WHEREAS the Aboriginal population is growing at a significantly higher rate than general population and our Aboriginal population continues to have a poorer health status than that of our non-Aboriginal population; and

WHEREAS citizens living in rural and remote areas have difficulty accessing health care services and incur great cost to access services; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has not yet reached national benchmarks for wait times in the priority areas of cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint replacements and sight restoration; and

WHEREAS chronic disease management, emergency health, cancer care and patient safety are integral elements of our health care system; and

WHEREAS home care must be acknowledged as a part of the health care system; and

WHEREAS we await whistleblower legislation; and

WHEREAS our health care delivery system was first subjected to regionalization in 1998 and further changes to these regions in 2004; and

WHEREAS no external evaluation of the Integrated Health Regions has ever occurred;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct an independent external review of the Integrated Health Regions that would be examined by review panel; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly direct the panel to recommend strategies for improvements to the Province's health care system in the following areas: sharing models of success, administration, communications, accountability, further enhancing patient care, community participation and responding to local needs; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have an opportunity to submit their views to this review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to introduce a private member's motion - hopefully not as many whereases as the last one – moved by myself and seconded by the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for fair and equitable treatment for all citizens; and

WHEREAS Revenue Canada is charged with the responsibility of collecting income tax in a fair and equitable manner; and

WHEREAS many Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen participated in the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program; and

WHEREAS participants in the 1999 License Retirement Program paid a disproportionate and unfair share of income tax on their license retirement payout as compared to those participants in the 1996 and 2002 Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program; and

WHEREAS this inequity has cost fisher people who participated in the 1999 buy-back program undue financial hardship;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the Government of Canada to immediately require Revenue Canada to review and correct the unfair financial income tax burden placed on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who participated in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to try to answer a question that was posed to me in the House on Thursday, May 8, by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in regard to lifting the restrictions on Zone 11 concerning petroleum products and the pricing thus.

As we all know, the price freezes for petroleum products have been in place for several years now in several regions of Labrador, since 2001. The maximum price paid by consumers during that winter months remains frozen so that it reflects the cost of the product purchased and placed in storage. Price freezes are generally put in place with the first scheduled price change in November and are lifted when there is no longer any seasonal impediments to supply, and the storage supplies are diminished. Any product brought into the frozen zones from other locations will be then purchases at current market. Therefore, should the freeze not be lifted the suppliers would have to adjust their prices and could not afford to bring in the additional supplies.

On April 24, 2008 one of the suppliers in that particular region formally advised the board that fuel products were getting low and may very well run out in the next few days, certainly by the beginning of May, 2008. That was despite the increase in storage capacity that the supplier installed last fall. Demand was higher than expected with the unusual, favourable winter conditions and the discount between Zone 11, which was the one that was lifted - which is Lodge Bay, Cartwright - and then Zone 10 where there is no price freeze.

In other words, what happened was Zone 11 experienced an increase in buying in their petroleum products due to the close proximity to (inaudible) because the pricing was cheaper in Zone 11, and they could go back and forth between the two areas. As well, Zone 11 now can be supplied with both road and tanker access. The other zones, subject to the freeze, are served by tanker only. The new supply that is coming into Zone 11 at this particular time has to be bought in the Ultramar facility in L'Anse au Loup, which is located in Zone 10. The supplier would have to pay today's prices, therefore it was not economically feasible for the local supplier to actually supply product at the frozen prices. Thus, it would be unfair not to lift the freeze at this particular time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notices have been given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I want to present a petition today with regards to the long term care facility that was supposed to go ahead in the Conception Bay North area. I know I have presented this petition on numerous occasions. I know we did not hear anything - I guess the news that we wanted to confirm in this year's Budget. All that I was asking for on behalf of those residents is that government would take the time and get the finances again - and have a reassessment done.

There was an assessment done back in 2002 and it was determined that they were the number one priority on the list to have a long-term care facility, a 240-bed facility in the Conception Bay North area. I am just asking government if they would reconsider that. It is an urgent need there, Mr. Speaker. The facilities that are being used now are inadequate in this day and age and the assessment that was done back at that time confirmed that. I am just calling upon all members to urge government to re-evaluate the situation. I know the present minister did tell me that the possibilities were there that it would be looked at in the future.

So I am just calling upon all members and more particularly the hon. members who represent the areas that entail the Conception Bay North area, if they would urge government to see to it that an assessment would be done in the very near future with regard to the long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something from Question Period. I was asked the question whether there is a Standing Order for information or transcripts through the Department of Health. I was just informed outside that either through Robert Thompson or through the Department of Health there is, in fact, a Standing Order, but I was not aware of it. I just do not want to leave a misimpression in the Chamber on that particular question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. Premier rose on a point of order, actually it is a point of clarification. The Chair accepts the point of clarification.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 3, first reading of Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, Bill 29, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce Bill 29 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," carried. (Bill 29)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has been now read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, first reading of Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Partnership Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Partnership Act, Bill 30, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 30 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Partnership Act," carried. (Bill 30)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Partnership Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 5, first reading of Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, Bill 31, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 31 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 31)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call Motion 1, which is debate on the Budget Speech. I believe the first order of business is a vote on the amendment which was concluded on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call, as I said, resumption of debate on the main motion, which will fall to our side to the House, I believe, to continue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my pleasure today to get up and participate in the debate that we have been having here in the House regarding the Budget that was recently tabled, Budget 2008 by the government. There are a number of points that I will make, some of which have been made before but I think they bear repeating, and some of them are my own personal comments on the Budget that was brought down by this government.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget, as has been said, shows that the Province now has, for the fourth consecutive year, a surplus recorded for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When I think back to when I first was elected in 2003, it is amazing to think that we have now recorded our fourth consecutive surplus as a Province. You will recall that when we first formed government we were facing quite a difficult financial situation, had to make a number of tough decisions early on in our mandate and made a commitment that we would get the fiscal House of the Province in order and would work diligently towards that. We actually had an eight-year plan for that. Within the first four years, we were able to turn around the financial situation of the Province and ensure that we are in a surplus position.

The surplus for the past year was over $1 billion; it was about $1.4 billion. Our projections for the upcoming year, Mr. Speaker, are about $544 million. Indeed, tremendous news and very positive news for the Province, and more importantly, for the people of the Province. Having said that, we are all aware that we have tremendous debt in our Province. We still have, on a per capita basis, more than double the debt that other provinces and other citizens of Canada carry. Our per capita debt, I believe, is somewhere around $23,000 or $24,000 per person, which is a tremendous amount of pressure, financial pressure that we bear as a Province. In terms of our overall debt, we are still over $11 billion. We are going to reduce it down, Mr. Speaker, to about $10 billion for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is something that we committed to as a government. That is something that we committed to when we were in Opposition. It is something that we committed to in our blueprints.

We believe, as a government, that we have to ensure that we bring down the debt because it ensures the long-term sustainability and the long-term viability and the long-term financial health of the Province, but we also believe, as a Progressive Conservative government, that we have a number of social initiatives that we need to bring forth and we have made a number of investments in our Budget and in previous Budgets to ensure that the social side of this government shows just as strongly as does the fiscally responsible side.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think is very important in terms of this Budget is that we now, as a Province, have the fourth-lowest average personal income tax rate in the country. That is something that is going to help people in terms of improving our competitiveness nationally as a Province. It helps people keep more money in their pockets. It allows people to use that money in investing in new businesses, new opportunities or, in fact, in paying the basic needs that they have in terms of heat, light, food and shelter, those kinds of things, but it is getting money in people's pockets, which is what we as a government have been trying to do with our Poverty Reduction Strategy and a bunch of other initiatives that we have made.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak to, as Minister Responsible for Labour, the fact that our unemployment rate is reducing. The labour force tables that come out every Friday, we look at those on a weekly basis but we also compare them on an annual basis to the previous year to see the kinds of trends that are developing, and we see, as a government, that the trends are very much in a positive direction.

Our unemployment rate for 2008-2009 is going to be the lowest unemployment rate that this Province has had in twenty-six years, Mr. Speaker, in a quarter of a century, the lowest unemployment rate that we will have. What it also means is that we have more people now who are entering the workforce as well. Our participation rate, they call it, the participation rate of people in the workforce, is also increasing as well.

Those are positive signs, Mr. Speaker, very positive signs. The fact that we have less people unemployed, more people available and participating in the workforce, means that there are economic opportunities out there for people, and people are apt to look after themselves in terms of their own self-sufficiency.

As well, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about opportunities here in this Province - economic opportunities, and opportunities for people in terms of raising their families and making a living for themselves, and being able to look after themselves - we had a net in-migration last year, in the last half of last year, into this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I was brought up on stories of people leaving the Province. That is all that I heard as a young man growing up, and all that, I am sad to say, my own children have heard for the last number of years, the numbers of people who leave this Province. When I think of my aunts and my uncles and my cousins, a vast majority of them are living away. Most of them are living in the Toronto area, in Ontario. A lot of them are living in the New England states, and a lot of them are out west working. So, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I am used to having relatives of mine who make their living elsewhere; and, for many, many years, we have had people who have had to leave this Province to be able to make a living, but last year, for the first time in many, many years, we had net in-migration. We had over 2,000 people more return to the Province than left the Province, and I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this government has been able to reduce our debt, the fact that we have the fourth-lowest personal income tax rates in the country, the fact that we have been able to lower our unemployment rate to the lowest it has been in twenty-six years, all of those things are the things that contribute to the net in-migration of people into this Province.

So we have 2,000 more people who came to the Province than left the Province last year. That, I believe, is a very healthy situation, Mr. Speaker, and one that I hope continues into the future, and some of the initiatives that we as a government have brought forward, I believe, are the kinds of initiatives that will see that trend continue as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a minute, if I could, as well, about the revenues that this government has. There is no doubt, we are living in a time when we have revenues that are coming from our oil resources; we are a resource rich Province. We have a lot of our revenue because of the price of oil. It is sort of a double-edged sword in a lot of cases for us. It has allowed us, as a government, to have revenues that we can use to bring in projects and policies for the people of the Province, but it has also been a bit tough on people in terms of being able to heat their homes and fill their vehicles with gas, and their fishing boats, and all the other kinds of things that they do; but the balance, Mr. Speaker, that this government has, is that we make sure that we use those revenues in terms of some of the programs that I have mentioned.

I have already mentioned the reductions in income tax, the Home Heating Rebate. Initially, the Home Heating Rebate was $100, when this government took over, and it applied basically to oil. Our latest Home Heating Rebate Program could give people up to a maximum of $400. The threshold of people who could qualify for that was raised substantially – up over $30,000, if memory serves me correctly - and it did not only include oil but it included electricity, it included propane or wood, whatever source of heat there may have been.

The revenues that we are receiving from our resources, we are trying to put those revenues back into the pockets of the people as well, and not only the people who are here today trying to earn a living and make a living but, as I referred to earlier with our Debt Reduction Program, we are also trying to make sure that our children who will be raised in this Province, and our grandchildren who will be raised and working in this Province, will be able to do so without having the yoke of a big debt hanging around their neck. We want to make sure that the debt that we have, which I said to you was upwards around $12 billion, will be reduced to $10 billion, and hopefully by next year we will have it down in the single digits.

We have a very aggressive Debt Reduction Program as well as a very progressive social program in terms of our Budget initiatives, and we want to make sure that we continue to do those kinds of things, utilizing the revenues that we have.

We have had to, as well, Mr. Speaker - I think one point worth mentioning, one number worth mentioning - it has been commented upon that the percentage of spending, the increase in spending that this government has undertaken, last year, I believe, we were about 8.9 per cent and this year, I believe, we are somewhere in the vicinity of about 9.5 per cent increase in spending. Some people will say, Mr. Speaker, that those are very, very large increases in spending, it will be difficult to sustain over the long term, and government would need to be very careful about maintaining that level of increased spending because, in actual fact, it is a fairly aggressive spending pattern.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is, the reason we have done that as a government over the last couple of years is that we have had to. There have been decades, I would suggest to you, many, many years, of not enough spending, not enough investment in our people and our infrastructure, and we now, as a government, have had to make a conscious decision to try and support that lack of spending that occurred for many, many years, and build up the infrastructure, make the investments in our people and in our programs and policies to ensure that we catch up. This is not just about trying to get ahead, Mr. Speaker, but it is about trying to catch up.

We have roads in this Province that have not been touched in years. We have investments in social housing that have been neglected for many, many years. In my own district of St. John's Centre there is social housing that was built in the 1940s and 1950s that has not had any significant upgrades since then. That is fifty-five to sixty years where these units have not had any significant investment.

We need to make sure that we have the kinds of spending amounts that we have, increases that we have, because we have a lot of catch-up to do. Once we catch up, Mr. Speaker, once we have brought the Province to a point where it is caught up, then we can go back to what would be considered to be more normal spending patterns and maybe get down into the 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent increases on a year-over-year basis.

For the first few years we have been able, because we have the revenue streams, to do the kinds of spending and the kinds of investments that need to be done to ensure that we bring our infrastructure, in particular, up to a point where it needs to go.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak a little bit about - and I think it is important to mention - I have people who have indicated to me that they feel we need to be doing more in terms of tax reductions and that kind of thing. In particular, people talk about the tax on gas, and the tax on home heating fuels, and those kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, I believe, that we, as a government, make sure that we do tax reductions in the areas in which they are going to bring the most benefit. Right now, in terms of trying to reduce taxes, if we were to take the tax that we have on gas, for instance, people go to the pump - and we have a fixed amount. Some people think it is a percentage of the price, but it is not. No matter what the price of gas is when you go to fill up your vehicle, the provincial government Treasury, and I believe it is about fifteen or sixteen cents per litre that the provincial government receives, that does not fluctuate. If the price goes higher, we do not get more; if the price goes lower, we do not get less. It is a fixed amount, Mr. Speaker.

That tax, people need to understand, is a tax basically that is used by government as a revenue. It is government using that money to invest in things like our roads, for instance, or investing in the other infrastructure that we have, our hospitals and our schools, investing in salary increases for employees of government, using it basically to make sure that things like the Prescription Drug Program are available for the greatest number of people.

That is what we use our tax money for, so it is a fine line between reducing taxes and also, then, potentially reducing the revenues that government would have available to it to be able to do the kinds of things that it needs to do. So we have made some adjustments in our tax regime. The Minister of Finance very competently has been able to, over the last couple of years, make some reductions in tax regimes. There are a number of tax regimes that we have, a number of areas upon which we tax people and products and services and so on, but it has to be done strategically to make sure that the kinds of reductions we are making are reductions that are going to benefit the most people, are going to benefit the people who need it, and are ultimately going to be in a manner that is not going to hinder or hamper the provincial government from being able to move forward and continue to do the kinds of investments that it needs to do to service the people of the Province.

It is important for people to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the tax revenues we receive are basically, as I said before, the revenues of the government, and it is those revenues that we use to make sure that we invest in the programs, whatever areas of priority we identify with our programs and services, to try and make sure that we have as many people as possible impacted in a positive way.

There is tax reduction, Mr. Speaker, there is investment in infrastructure, and there is also social investment. I mention in terms of our social investment the fact that we do have a Poverty Reduction Strategy, $100 million, Mr. Speaker, annualized. I just came back on Friday from a meeting with some people, where they asked me about our Poverty Reduction Strategy. Other provinces now, across the country - ourselves and Quebec were the two that were leading the country in this, but other provinces now across the country are starting to look at what we do here in terms of our Poverty Reduction Strategy. They are asking me: What is it that we did? How did we do it? How are we sustaining what we are doing, and what kind of stuff is happening because of that?

There is a lot happening with our Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Speaker. We started off with an investment of about $60 million with our Poverty Reduction Strategy a couple of years ago. We had a stated goal, a committed goal. Sad to say, we were the Province with the highest level of poverty in Canada when we brought in our Poverty Reduction Strategy. I am sad to say that, but it was fact, it is a fact, but we made a commitment that, as a government, with our Poverty Reduction Strategy, to, in ten years, one decade - which sounds like maybe a lot of time but, in reality, to do the kinds of things we are talking about is not a lot of time - we said that we would go from the Province in Canada with the highest level of poverty to the Province in Canada with the lowest level of poverty. We said we would do that within ten years. So, we have taken that $60 million investment and we, in the second year, made it approximately $80 million, and now in the third year we are $100 million annualized, and all of those incremental investments are building upon good successes that we have had, Mr. Speaker.

We have a number of good investments in this year's Budget. One of them, Mr. Speaker, that I want to talk about is: we talked about, in our Poverty Reduction Strategy, that one of our goals is trying to improve the earned incomes of people. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that we want to make sure that people have more money in their pockets to be able to do the kinds of things they need to do to sustain themselves.

People should be able to look after themselves. People want to look after themselves; I firmly believe that. People do not want to be receiving support from governments and agencies. I think most people, Mr. Speaker, would want to support themselves. In my experience, that is how I find it. So we have over $2 million, for instance, Mr. Speaker, in this year's Budget invested in initiatives that are going to allow income support clients or marginalized workers who may be working a minimum numbers of hours, part-time hours, persons with disabilities, other people who have low incomes, Mr. Speaker, we have investments made there to enable them to get employed in the workforce, to transition from an income support status that they may be in now into a working status. We have initiatives to allow them to work more hours and keep more of the money that they work.

We have skills development in there. There are opportunities out there for people, Mr. Speaker, if they are given an opportunity, to improve their educational and skill level. We have things involved in our Poverty Reduction Strategy which will do that.

There are many, many initiatives that I could name. I am going to try not to list them, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to sort of list everything out, but I can tell you that there are $100 million worth of investments that are being made in the Poverty Reduction Strategy to help the people of this Province, and in particular to help the people who may be finding themselves in a low income state or in a period of time where they are finding it difficult to be able to provide their basic needs. By basic needs I am talking food, shelter, heat and being able to find a job. I believe everybody who wants to work and who is capable of working and looking after themselves and contributing to society should be given that opportunity.

There are many people I speak to, Mr. Speaker, who would like to be making more of a contribution to society, would like to be investing more in their own future, and they have some difficulties because of various things they may need, various services or supports. I believe it is government's role to be able to provide that to people.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about our Poverty Reduction Strategy we are talking about investing in people. We are talking about investing in the kind of things that the people of this Province have indicated to us they would like to see us invest in. We have a done a round table. We did a fairly extensive consultation process when we developed our Poverty Reduction Strategy, and we made a commitment that two years after we implemented the strategy we would go back to the community and talk to the community and talk to the people in the communities about the Poverty Reduction Strategy to see if, in fact, it is meeting their needs, and if it is not how are we able to tweak it or change it to make it better meet the needs. If we are doing things that are working, then please tell us so we can continue to make the kinds of investments that need to be made to do those kinds of things. We are doing that, Mr. Speaker.

This year is a very pivotal year for our Poverty Reduction Strategy. We are going to go back and consult again with the people of the Province and we are going to ask them to critique us and to help us to measure the kinds of successes we are having. We are going to ask them to help us quantify the successes we are having, because it is important that we be able to be accountable, it is important that we be able to quantify the money that is going in with the benefit that is being received.

The one thing, Mr. Speaker – I see that my time is getting short. I just want to clue up, I guess, with this, the one thing I want to make mention of and make sure that people in the Province understand is that the resources we have – as I said earlier, we are a resource rich Province. We are very rich in terms of our oil and gas, in terms of our hydro electricity, in terms of our culture and in terms of our people. We are very much a resource rich Province, Mr. Speaker. But, we understand as a government that some of the resources we have aren't going to be there forever. There will be a day when there will be no oil offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be a day when we will have extracted all of the gas that we can extract. As decision makers today in government we understand we need to be very, very careful about the investments we are making, about how we are spending the people's money, how we are investing the people's money, because we want to make sure we get the appropriate bang for the buck, if I could use that phrase, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure that the money that we are spending today on behalf of the people of the Province is money that we are going to see a benefit from and realize a benefit from in the future. So because of the fact that these resources are not renewable, some of these resources are not renewable, we understand that we have to be very, very careful in how we invest and we have to make sure that we do it properly.

As one member, Mr. Speaker, I am very optimistic about the kinds of investments that this government is making. I say to people every day, all of our decisions may not be the right decisions but they are made based upon the information we have and they are made based upon the times that we find ourselves in, and sometimes your information may change or the times you are in change and you need to change your programs. We are flexible and we will continue to do that.

I want to leave people with the message of this: number one, we are certainly a fiscally conservative government and debt reduction is a priority for this government. I believe it is an appropriate thing that we should be doing. Secondly, we also value our people and we make investments in our people. As the Premier said on election night, the boats of all will rise when the tide comes in. Well, the tide has come in, in terms of the money that we have, and we are going to make sure, through our Poverty Reduction Strategy, that all people of the Province benefit from that. Thirdly, we do have strategic plans, we do have long-term vision. We are consulting with the people of the Province on that and we hope the people are happy with the direction that we have taken as a government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call now Order 6, which will be second reading of Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Twenty-six and twenty-seven, so can you start with twenty-six that I just called?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I will call Order 7 then, which is second reading of, An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." (Bill 27)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In the Budget Speech we announced a number of revenue reduction measures to put money back in people's pockets, to take government's hands out of people's pockets. We announced a number of measures. Last year we announced what was called the greatest tax cut in the history of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and fee reduction. I think we reduced or eliminated 170 fees, as well as the income tax cut and other revenue measures that help seniors, senior couples. This year we even exceeded that, with revenue reduction measures of $178 million.

What we now have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to pass the relevant legislation to give lawful effect to those reductions. What we are doing here today is we are dealing with an amendment to what is called The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, which is more commonly known as the payroll tax. The explanatory notes of the bill indicate that - well, you can see there is only two. It is a very small bill, just a small amendment. There are two clauses, only one and two. Clause one of the bill would amend the definition of exemption threshold to exempt the first $1 million of an employer's payroll from a tax under the act, and clause two would bring the act into force as of January 1 of this year.

The payroll tax, or the health and post-secondary education tax, is 2 per cent of a person's payroll, less the amount that is exempt. Previously, the exemption was quite convoluted. Prior to this year, employers with a payroll of up to $600,000 were exempt. Employers with a payroll that was greater than $700,000 had a $500,000 payroll exemption, while employers with payroll between $600,000 and $700,000 paid tax on payroll, less a sliding scale exemption threshold from $600,000 to $500,000. Now that was quite confusing. So effective January 1, under this legislation, employers will now have a threshold of $1 million. Payrolls above that amount will be subject to the tax, and as I say, this will be effective January 1, 2008.

This amendment will remove an additional 308 small and medium-sized businesses off the tax rolls. So, 308 small and medium-sized businesses will not pay this tax whatsoever, and the tax burden will be reduced for 578 others.

Mr. Speaker, I am told there are about 31,600 employers in the Province - 31,600 employers, small and medium-sized businesses. We know that small and medium-sized businesses, small business creates lots of jobs in the Province and right across the country. About 2.5 per cent of these 31,600 employers in this Province will pay the tax under The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, the measures contained in this bill, Bill 27, will put $6.5 million back into the hands of employers; monies that they can use to create new jobs. Monies they can use to help them pay the increase in minimum wage which is on the horizon and monies which will stimulate business reinvestment and hopefully create more jobs. This is a good thing. It puts more money back into businesses' pockets to enable them to invest and to reinvest and hopefully employ a lot more people, and that was the purpose of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and have a few comments on Bill 27, but I look at the clock and see sixty minutes up there. I do not say I will be here for a full sixty minutes. The clock scares you sometimes, now that we have the new clock.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on this bill. As the minister has just stated, no doubt it is good news to know that the threshold now for small businesses in our Province, when it comes to the payroll tax, has been increased from the $600,000. Like he said, it was a bit confusing the overlapping there. Now it is up to $1 million. It is amazing when you hear figures from time to time. Lots of times you only concentrate on what you have in your own district and surrounding area, but to know that there are 31,600 employers in this Province that will be basically affected by this tax. Over a period of time, even prior to the election and since the election, we have had the opportunity to meet with various groups involved in the small businesses and they were a bit concerned about the increase in the minimum wage but here is one way, hopefully, that this will help to alleviate the burden that they have had placed on them.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, we also know that small business in this Province - I guess the tremendous job that they do. I can only speak for my area, and I have never ever counted them I suppose and had a figure like the minister just had for the full Province, but I can assure you the small businesses in my area really make what the district is. How many are out there with regards to five, ten, fifteen and twenty people employed? Yes, we do have some businesses out there that have a tremendous amount of people on their staff, up so high as 300 and 350, but for the greater numbers I guess it is in the lower range.

Just this Saturday I happened to attend a function at Ascension Collegiate, it was called Youth Works, and we saw various employers there, various people from government agencies, both federal and provincial, just more or less guiding our young people, preparing them for the workforce. No doubt, their main ambition, their main goal, is to remain here in the Province to do this. Hopefully this will help our small businesses so that they can employ more people.

Mr. Speaker, while we are on Bill 27 - it is a money bill - and I guess you can go a little beyond the bill from time to time, and that is what I plan to do. If not, I won't take very much of the sixty minutes for sure.

Time has elapsed pretty much on the main Budget motion. We tried to bring in a sub-amendment, but that wasn't in order, so my time speaking on the Budget was a bit limited. I have to say, from the outset, we as the Opposition and I am sure the Government House Leader – he got up and explained it very well the other day, the process that we go through when budgets come down, and various amendments and sub-amendments and so on. I guess that is what I did when I brought a fourth amendment. I want to make it very clear – and I have said it before I think – that my amendment to the Budget wasn't that I totally disagreed with what was in the Budget. There are wonderful things, good things, not only for my district but for the full Province, in the Budget.

From time to time there are issues that you thought were going to be there that weren't there, and some of the issues that you look forward to. As a matter of fact, I brought forward a petition again today, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of a long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area. I knew it wasn't going to be built this year, even though it was on the radar before. It was a facility that the officials within government – it wasn't a political thing. It was done through the proper procedure, where they felt the Conception Bay North area was a prime example where a long-term care facility should have been built.

I believe today - even all hon. members who also represent the immediate area that I do, when I reference them from time to time they believe the same thing. All I was hoping for at this point in time is that government might be able to come out and announce that, yes, we will do an assessment. We will have a further assessment done and just see where you are in the long-range plans. That is not taking anything away from any long-term care facility that has been announced since that one. I am sure those people need the services just as well as we do in the Conception Bay North area.

Hopefully, government will see to it that they will have that assessment done. I am not standing here today saying I am looking for a long-term care facility for the Port de Grave district. I don't care what district it is in out there. Everyone would love to see it in their districts. Whether it is in the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace or the District of Harbour Main, it doesn't matter. Whether it is in Bellevue, the need is there and that is the key thing to it, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that I speak on from time to time and present petitions on, is the concerns that I have in the health system when it comes to the immediate district, and one of them again is the retention and recruitment of doctors. We know this year's Budget has stated very clearly that that is the intention of this government, but at the present time and for the last couple of years, more so than in the past, there seems to be a real shortage of general practitioners in the Port de Grave District and surrounding areas. It is very evident when you hear comments from your constituents, where they cannot get to see a doctor as soon as they would like to because of the massive caseloads that the general practitioners have in the area, but I guess the heart-wrenching part is when people call you and say: Where can I find the services of a general practitioner?

I have to say, from time to time we have had to - know there was one doctor, I think it was in the Mount Pearl or St. John's area, who I guess was just starting up and was looking for patients and clients and there were ever so many people who accepted that, even though they have to drive quite a distance. Some of them have to get family members to take them there to see the doctors, but at least they have a doctor who they can see when the time comes, and more importantly than that, they have someone when major testing has to be done. Whether it is CAT scans, MRIs or what have you, there is someone who their reports can be sent to so that they can get the messages back, because you cannot always get to see the specialists. We all know the workload that those doctors have. We hear about it every day in the media, throughout the week.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only in the District of Port de Grave that I hear that, I hear it from the Trinity–Bay de Verde area, Carbonear–Harbour Grace and the Harbour Main area. No doubt there are quite a few doctors out there but with the caseload that they have they are unable to take new patients.

From time to time, we know that our residents are returning back to the Province, and some of them are not ordinary residents of our Province. There are a lot of people from out of Province who retire and they move here to this area. I know, when I was on a Parliamentary Conference last year in Winnipeg, there was a couple there who said that they were going to move back and live in Salmon Cove in the Carbonear area. I asked them if they had any relatives there and they said, no, we came here on a vacation last year, we saw a house that was for sale by the ocean and we are going to buy it. I said, your wife must have been from there, and the comment was, no, we are both from out here but we are going to move back there and live.

Lots of times, Mr. Speaker, those are the types of individuals we hear talk of, when they come here, who are trying to get a general practitioner. Hopefully that will be resolved in the near future. We know it is a major problem. I know it is a major problem in my area, because in the clinic where I go to from time to time, it is a two-doctor clinic, and I think over the past six years there have been seven doctors there, just one doctor at a time, and finding it very difficult to get the second doctor to stay for any length of time.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the nurses and retention of nurses. We all know how busy they are, the workload that they have. We hear it in the media every day, and hopefully that can be resolved. Hopefully, the young people who are about to graduate now this year will see fit to stay here in the Province. I think, hopefully, through the Budget and the new initiatives that the government is coming up with, that they will stay here in this Province, because that is another area that is very crucial.

The other item, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping for this year was, I guess, the retention of keeping our winter depots open throughout the area in the summertime for maintenance on the roads. We know that maintenance is being done on the roads but many of the workers, from time to time, call me and they feel that if the depots remained open they would be able to do the work in that immediate area, rather than have to travel quite a distance, from time to time, out of the one depot, like in Bay Roberts. They have a job to do, and many of them feel that if everyone was kept on - because I think last year some of them, when they were laid off, moved outside the Province. I am not saying every depot in the Province has to remain open, but probably certain areas where a lot of maintenance work has to be done.

The minister admitted to me from time to time, that there is a lot of work has to be done, maintenance work, and that is being planned throughout the area, and my area is no exception to the others, because a lot of ditching has to be done now, after the storm that we had last August, and quite a bit of work has to be gone over with, and hopefully that will not happen again.

I guess one issue we were all hoping would be reinstated in full capacity is the twenty-four hour snow clearing. I know, through estimates and meetings with the minister, there is notification that that is being considered in high risk areas or high-traffic areas. Maybe down the road we will see that it will be returned. I know in the winter, from time to time, many people call their MHAs. I know I get calls on it – someone is trying to get to hospital. I know that when the trucks come off the roads – I think it was 9:30 in the nights last winter – there is a system in place where they can call and have the truck go out and help an ambulance get through in case there is a major storm. Many times, I guess, people are concerned in life threatening situations that maybe they will not get there in time. It is good to know that there is going to be consideration in high traffic areas. We know for sure, on our TCH, that there is traffic going, I guess, twenty-four hours a day, the transport trucks and a lot of other people who have to go back and forth to work.

Mr. Speaker, many times when we stand we bring up issues and the issues that we bring forward are not something that we try to think up and make up to try to make government look bad, if there is such thing as doing that. There are issues that come forward from constituents. I know in my case - and I can speak very clearly this year - it is bad enough, I guess, being a critic for one department but when you have six departments you get calls, not only from your own constituency, but you get them from all over the Island. Whatever department you are critic for the issues will come forward, whether it is Transportation, Municipal Affairs, or what have you.

Sometimes you hear hon. members on the other side, well, you are only fear mongering, but it is not that. You are bringing forward issues that are concerns to not only the residents in your own area but also those who you represent throughout the Province, because it is an ongoing thing. Even though they have their own MHAs sometimes they believe, because you are a critic for a various department, that the message probably is going to get through or you will help it out a little bit more or what have you.

From time to time we hear talk of industry in our Province shutting down and new industry coming in. I have had calls over this past weekend and again this morning - I think there has been a demonstration out in Come by Chance. There are major concerns with the workers out in the Come by Chance area, a facility that has operated fairly well over the years and many people have had employment there. The notification that I had this morning was that the possibility is of 150 workers at Come by Chance losing their jobs. I know they are part-time workers, but being part-time does not mean they only work fifteen or eighteen weeks there. I was told by the gentleman who called me from my district that he goes to work there generally every year in February month and he is working right up until December. It may be part-time but, I mean, those people get anywhere from ten to eleven months work each and every year.


Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that government should step in because probably that is not the right way to go, but I hope that government keeps an eye on this situation. They are talking about contracting this work out, and many of the workers are really concerned about it.

It is like the gentleman said to me, this is a new company that came in, apparently, from Alberta - Harvest Energy Trust, I think they are called - they came in and now they are seeing to it that there have to be reductions and they are hoping to lay off 150 people and the work will be tendered out. Like he said, here we are, there is another job fair coming to the Province - or I was told - some time this week. He said it is unbelievable, that there are other companies coming here from Alberta trying to get us to go that way. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that everything will work out and those people will not be put in a position that they will lose their jobs.

Another issue with regard to health care came to my attention just over this weekend and I was really surprised, probably just because I was not aware of it. We know we have a good system here when it comes to the overall health care picture, and this comes to the ambulance operations. We know that there is a fee to be charged, I think it is $115 - I know that is what it is out our way – but I was given the scenario about a family that came back I think it was to Twillingate last year to visit family and friends, and this individual got sick and had to be taken to the hospital in Gander and, to follow up that, had to be transferred to St. John's. They called their friends here in my district - they were up to visit him, I think - and they wanted me to check out and see if the invoice that they received was right and proper. When I checked it out with the officials in the Department of Health - I have to say, the lady was very up front, very co-operative. In very little time at all I had the response back, but, like always, it is not always the response that you want to hear.

I was told that for an out-of-town, out-of-Province resident to travel from Gander to St. John's by ambulance would have been $1,416. There was also a $150 administration fee and a $115 patient fee, for a total of somewhere in the vicinity of $1,600; however, this family that travelled home last year and received their invoice, the invoice they received for the ambulance from Gander to St. John's was $1,957.64 plus $503.80 for the nurse to travel. I can understand that part, but I said to them - I understand that we are subsidized here, the $115 fee is the subsidy, but they said we have to recoup the cost over and above our subsidy.

I am led to believe from that, if I was a patient at Gander, even though I am a resident from Newfoundland, it would cost for the ambulance to bring me in and government would have to come up with another $1,300, that fee that government would pay to the operator to subsidize that cost for me to come in.

I guess the other thing that the resident, when they brought this to my attention, the concern they had is how people do not know about this. I know I didn't know it. It is not only on our side here; it is if we travel outside of our Province. If we go outside of the Province, all we ever hear said is, make sure you have insurance if you travel to the United States. That is understandable, and we all do that, but if we travel outside of our own Province - and I found out since I got this information that if I was to travel to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and unfortunately had to be taken from a park, if I am camping there, to a hospital, it is somewhere around a $700 fee because I am out of Province, but out West the fees are similar to what they are here.

I was totally amazed by the amount, even the $1,400 figure on top of the $115 to take a patient from Gander, whether you are outside the Province or wherever, to St. John's, but they were invoiced $1,900.

We are still checking that out, but it is something - I guess if that is what it is, that is what it is, but it seems to be a tremendous amount.

The only other issue I am going to touch on now for the next couple of minutes is in regard to the teacher allocation. We all know the formula of the past, and the minister has said this, rightly so, it was not working and a new formula was brought in. The issue that I know we bring forward from time to time is not that we are saying that the formula is flawed, what is there now; it is the concerns that are expressed to us by people throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just ordinary citizens - not saying that a teacher is not an ordinary citizen, but the calls that we receive are from people who are in the system.

As a matter of fact, I was given a letter by a principal in one of the schools in my area that he had received from the NLTA, and they were bombarded with the same issues that we have. I know the minister said the other day that she would be looking at this, and that the full formula was not in place, but those schools have been advised of the number of units they will have for next year.

One of the issues brought to my attention from a school in my area, which is All Hallows in North River, they are saying that right at the present time the Grade 4s have sixty-three students and they have three units. The same sixty-three students will be moving to Grade 5 next year and they will be only have two units with thirty-one and thirty-two students in each class.

That is the type of question they are asking. Another school has eighty Kindergarten students coming up this year, in September, and they have two units, for eighty. What is happening, they look at it as a half a unit in the morning and a half a unit in the afternoon and this is where you come up with your two units.

What people are saying is, if you have twenty Kindergarten students, twenty in the morning and twenty in the afternoon, you do not have any time whatsoever to look out for their needs and being prepared - you take twenty kids who just started school - and they believe that should be four units for the eighty, rather than two with a half-unit basis, and that is the way they look at them.

Mr. Speaker, I was only prepared for about twenty minutes. I did not think about the hour. Like I said, we are talking on Bill 26, the Income Tax – I am sorry, we changed that, didn't we? - Bill 27, with regard to the Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act. As the minister stated, it is more commonly known as the payroll tax. I think it is good news with regard to the $1 million exemption now, and I am sure it is going to help businesses throughout not only my district but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Finance speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I want to thank the hon. Member for Port de Grave for his remarks.

I think most people on all sides of this House are in agreement that lowering the payroll tax will enable businesses to hire more people, invest in their enterprises, and hopefully deal with more benefits for their workers such as an increase in the minimum wage, so I would urge passage of second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a second time.

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

Now?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 27)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call Order 6, second reading of Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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


Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand here today to introduce second reading of Bill 26, which regards the Income Tax Act of 2000 to provide for further tax reductions that we announced in the provincial Budget of 2008.

As I said previously during my comments on the Payroll Tax Act, last year in this House, in Budget 2007, we introduced a bill that reduced personal income taxes in this Province by the largest amount in the history of the Province. It was the largest tax decrease in the history of the Province. We did that for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was to make our economy more competitive. Newfoundland and Labrador had a reputation of being a high tax jurisdiction. People would say: Well, there is no point of investing in Newfoundland and Labrador because their taxes are so high. To be competitive, and in order to enhance and improve investment so that new jobs would be created, especially for those people who are not working, especially for marginalized people who have not had an opportunity to get employment, one of the things that we looked at was to lower personal income taxes, and we did that in a major way.

Again, in Budget 2008 we proposed, in this bill, to amend the income tax legislation to reduce the tax rates by one percentage point in all three income brackets. Last year, in Budget 2007, we lowered our rates in Newfoundland and Labrador to the lowest income tax rates in the Atlantic provinces, and we will continue to do so. This year's reduction, as outlined in Bill 26, will continue with further reductions, a further $75 million in personal income tax reductions for the residents of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, more specifically, this bill will reduce the rates. From the low rate it will be from 8.7 per cent down to 7.7 per cent. The middle rate will go from 13.8 per cent to 12.8 per cent, and the highest rate will go from 16.5 per cent down to 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2008. That date of July 1, 2008 will be for a half year. So to get the full effective annualized benefit of this rate will take two years.

I ran into a gentleman in Deer Lake Airport the other day and he said I thought you eliminated the surtax, the 9 per cent surtax on personal income tax. I said we did. He said: Well, how come I had to pay some of that this year when I filed my income tax return? The answer, of course, is that the matter was effective as of July 1 last year. It takes two years to become fully implemented.

Mr. Speaker, for the whole of 2008 the blended rates will be reduced therefore to 8.2 per cent, 13.3 per cent and 16 per cent respectfully for each of the brackets numbers one through three. Of course, I am referring to the effective rates for the whole year, considering the combined effect on 2008 of lowering the rates halfway through the year. Fully annualized in 2009, however, the whole year effective rates in 2009 will drop to 7.7 per cent, 12.8 per cent and 15.5 per cent.

I am particularly happy about this announcement, Mr. Speaker, because with these changes we can now say - last year we said we had the lowest tax rates in Atlantic Canada. Now we can say that Newfoundland and Labrador has the fourth lowest personal income tax rate amongst the provinces in the country. That makes us competitive, as I said earlier. People now realize that you can invest in Newfoundland and Labrador and the tax rate will not be overly burdensome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: All one needs to do is to look at the numbers, Mr. Speaker, to appreciate the impact that the government has had on the pocketbooks of taxpayers in this Province. As a result of the tax reductions this year and last year, taxpayers will save 20 per cent or more provincial personal income taxes. For many the savings is well over 20 per cent, depending on personal circumstances. This year's change, combined with last year's change, has saved taxpayers a total of $230 in personal income tax annually.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to look at - if we look at the combined effect of the taxation, because I know there are some people in the Province who find fault with providing taxpayers in all brackets with a tax cut. The tax cut this year is a 1 per cent cut in all three brackets, but there are some people who argue that you should not give it to people in the higher bracket, you should not give it to people in the middle bracket. It should only be given to people in the lower bracket. Well, Mr. Speaker, this government certainly recognizes the need to help low-income earners in this Province and we have acted on this many times over during the past few years and we did it even when our fiscal situation was not as healthy as it is today.

Now, I will mention a few examples of some of the things that we have done for low-income earners through taxation and through other means. In the first Budget of 2004, when cash was very tight indeed, we endeavoured to find the means to introduce the low income tax reduction, which we enhanced in 2007. That removed 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from the provincial tax rolls. So, there are 20,000 people at the low end who now pay no taxes whatsoever, at least no provincial taxes whatsoever. This low income tax reduction, in addition to removing 20,000 from the tax rolls, also reduced taxes for a further 11,250 people.

Other things for low income individuals have been enhancing of the child benefit and major enhancements to the seniors' benefit. I mentioned earlier that last year we had increased the threshold so that about 7,000 senior couples who were not getting the low income seniors' benefit would now quality. There were a lot of people in October last year who received a cheque for about $800 which will certainly help.

We also introduced indexation to the income tax system. With respect to the seniors' benefits this year, I forgot to mention what we are doing this year. We recognize that if you have a senior couple who have a cost of living, if one of those should pass away the cost of living doesn't drop by half. The cost of living may drop marginally but it certainly doesn't drop by half. We therefore listened to the pleas of many people who said that the full amount of the benefit, the full $776, should apply to single seniors as well, and we did that this year. There are many widows and widowers and single seniors who will now receive a benefit that has doubled, from $400 to $800 approximately, $776 I think.

With respect to the indexation, I should briefly explain the significance of this item. Through the indexation rules that were introduced last year, certain programs such as the basic personal deduction, the low income tax reduction, the child benefit and the seniors' benefit will now keep pace with the rate of inflation. The true value of these programs in relieving the real cost of living is guaranteed into the future. Without indexation the true value of these programs would diminish each year in real terms over time.

The other important impact of indexation is the affect on income tax brackets. Each year these brackets will be increased to keep pace with inflation. We recognize that without indexation individuals, of course, were moving into higher tax brackets because of inflation, not because of a real income increase, but simply due to normal inflationary pressures that raise the salary over time. This was simply unfair to lower income individuals and that is why in 2007 we put an end to this terrible hidden tax grab, otherwise known as bracket creep.

Mr. Speaker, numerous other initiatives under the Poverty Reduction Strategy have had a major impact on low individuals. These include enhancements to the Prescription Drug Program. Of all of the things that we have done, this is the one I think I am more proud of, providing the drug card not just to seniors and not just to people on Income Support but to low income families as well. There is now, I am told, about 97,000 families that are eligible to receive the drug card and to receive not only the basic plan, but in addition the enhancement to the drug plan that prevents any family from having to pay more than a certain percentage of their income on drug (inaudible). I think that is a major, major policy initiative to help the people of this Province and one I am very proud of.

In addition to that, free text books, increases in Income Support, support for youth at risk, the make-work pay program, improved access to NLHC units, increased funding for legal aid for persons with disabilities, just to name a few, and the list goes on and on, as my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment mentioned earlier.

Mr. Speaker, this government has probably done more for low income people in this Province than any other government in the history of the Province, and we are continuing to do so. We will continue, as we did last year and as we did this year, to look at and introduce initiatives that will put money in people's pockets to enable them to deal with the rising cost of inflation, particularly the rising cost of energy, home heating fuel and gasoline.

In tandem with that objective, we must also tend to other objectives as well, such as the attraction and the retention of professional and highly skilled workers who are vital to the economic and social progress of this Province. I mentioned previously that the income tax cuts were to make the economy more competitive, to help people invest because out of investment will come jobs, which is what we are really after. The second reason is the attraction and the retention of professional and highly skilled workers. It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that there are challenges today in maintaining and attracting tradespersons in the Province. All you have to do is talk to anyone who is trying to get some home renovations done.

It also is no secret that we have challenges in attracting doctors and medical specialists and other health care professionals. We are working on these attraction and retention issues from a number of different fronts. I know the Minister of Health and government officials, probably as we speak, are having discussions with the NLMA and doctors.

One of these approaches is to reduce our income tax rates at the middle and top range. There is no conflict in taking our hands out of the pockets of workers and reducing and eliminating poverty. While we must continue to help those who need help, one of the real keys to breaking the cycle of poverty is creating opportunities. We need to be competitive to grow the economy, we need to create more jobs, we need to create higher-paying jobs and we need to create wealth and a better standard of living for all of our people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just looking through some of the tax measures that we have done over the years to help people at the low end of the income scale. I mentioned the LITR which removed 20,000 people from the tax rolls, I mentioned the indexation of the tax system and the lowering of tax benefits for all taxpayers. We also eliminated the sales tax on insurance. Now, most people would have insurance costs, either on their home, on their cabin and certainly their motor vehicles. By eliminating that tax, which was an unfair tax, that is putting $94 million back into people's pockets this year, and each year after that it will be $75 million.

The Newfoundland Child Benefit, as I mentioned, was enhanced and indexed. I mentioned the Seniors' Benefit. Also there is the Home Heating Rebate, which is $300 for people who heat with home heating fuel, it is $200 for those who heat with electricity and it is $400 for people in Coastal Labrador who heat with stove oil as opposed to home heating fuel which is more expensive; and who have lower temperatures and therefore use many more litres of heating fuel.

We have these programs and we introduced many programs. Probably no government has ever introduced as many programs to help low income people as our government, as the Williams government. We did it last year, we did it this year and we will continue to do so. The people who pay for the programs, the people in the middle bracket and the people in the high bracket, have never received a break until last year. I know there are people in this House who feel that they should not get a break.

Maybe some people look to those particular people in the middle group or in the high group as wealthy, but I look at them as an over-taxed group who have not had a break. While we have some fiscal room this year, I believe it is now time to give the middle group and the higher group a bit of freedom as well, so that they will invest more, so that they will create jobs and they will create opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that the people who have paid for many years, over sixty years, who paid for the cost of social programs in this Province, that we help them out as well by charging them a lower price in terms of lower taxes. People in the middle income range, say $30,000 to $70,000, pay 50 per cent of the tax that is collected in Newfoundland and Labrador. They will receive a savings of 25 to 30 per cent from the tax reductions of 2007 and 2008. Lower income tax earners will receive percentage reductions ranging from 29 per cent to 100 per cent. Individuals with incomes up to $13,143 and families with incomes up to $21,231 have been removed from the provincial tax roles. They pay no provincial income tax whatsoever. This would include low income earners including students and single parents. Individuals with incomes of over $250,000 comprise 0.44 per cent of tax filers and contribute almost 7 per cent of Newfoundland taxes. As I said, individuals in the middle range contribute 50 per cent of Newfoundland taxes and they will receive a savings of 25 to 30 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, if I can find it here, there is a table which sets out the cumulative tax savings over the last two years across the different income ranges. We have, in this Province, a progressive tax system. Obviously, if all individuals were to pay one tax rate, if we had the same tax rate, say it was 10 per cent for everyone, obviously the person that makes more money - if the tax rate was the same, say it was 10 per cent, the person that made $100,000 a year, paying a 10 per cent tax rate, would obviously pay more taxes than a person making, say, $10,000 a year. In addition, our tax system is a progressive tax system. We have three different rates. We do not all pay the same rate. People at the lower end of the income scale pay tax at a lower rate, which is now 7.7 per cent, people in the middle pay at a different rate and people at the high end pay a higher rate. People at the higher end not only pay absolutely more tax they also pay relatively more tax.

Then you look at the reduction; someone who is single at $150,000 a year would save 22 per cent over the last two years in income tax savings, a one-earner couple would save 22 per cent, a single parent at $150,000 would save 22 per cent, and a single senior would save 22 per cent approximately.

If you go down to the middle income range, say someone making $35,000 a year, a single person would save 28 per cent, a one-earner couple would save 29 per cent, a single parent would save 29 per cent, and a single senior would save 29 per cent.

If you go to the lower end of the scale, if you take someone earning $15,000 a year, a single person making $15,000 a year would have a tax savings over the last two years of 48 per cent -much higher, more than double a person at the higher end of the scale. A one-earner couple is not taxed, a single parent is not taxed, and a single senior earning $15,000 a year has a saving over the last two years of about 65 per cent.

As you can see, in terms of percentages, people at the lower end of the scale get, through our tax reductions, a higher percentage savings than people at the upper end of the scale; but, obviously, people who make more money, when they get a tax reduction, obviously, an absolute allowance, would receive more.

So, Mr. Speaker, the tax cuts, the tax reductions, accomplish three objectives. Number one, as I said twice before, they make our economy more competitive, they make our tax system more equitable, and they will cause people to invest, or have money to invest which hopefully they will invest, and create more employment and more jobs for the people of this Province who do not have them.

Secondly, it is important that we attract and retain skilled trades, professionals that we need, in particular those doctors and medical specialists and those in the health profession. To say we need more pathologists or oncologists or other medical specialists and say, but if you come here we are going to tax you higher than other jurisdictions in the country – it is not going to help you attract and retain those specialists.

So, it is obviously important because people who invest, and people who decide what jurisdiction they are going to live in, they look at something called their after tax income. They do not look at the income before taxes. They say: How much will I take home each month? How much will I keep, so I have that to help support my family?

That is where the income tax rates play a major role in attracting and retaining skilled people, professionals, medical professionals, and that is the second reason why we have to lower taxes, why we have to make our tax system more competitive.

The third thing is, you put money in people's pockets. With the rising cost of energy, it is important that government allow people to have more money in their pockets to spend it as they see fit, not as government telling them how they should spend it.

These are the three reasons why we are lowering taxes. We have gone to the lowest tax rates in Atlantic Canada. We are now the fourth-lowest tax rates in the country. People now know Newfoundland and Labrador as not only a good place to work and a place to live - we have always known that - but it is also a good place to invest and it is also a place now where people who work hard can now keep some of the money to support them and their families.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage of this particular bill to help the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments with respect to – I believe we are currently on Bill 26, is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, I think, other than the Budget Speech, that is the longest time that I have heard the Minister of Finance speak in the House. I appreciate being educated again; and, in that regard, I don't mind saying that we held the Estimates Committee this morning here in the House, for the Finance Department and the Public Service Commission, and all of the support staff that the minister has, the deputy minister and the people from various sectors of his department, the pensions people and so on, were all here and it was very informative.

This is my first time as a critic for the Department of Finance. I am still trying to get my head around how the department works, number one, but, more importantly, how everything else from a financial, fiscal, economic point of view either derives from or funnels back into the Department of Finance. In that regard it was very, very educational. I think I have some concept now of what a sinking fund is, and how it works. I have a better appreciation of the Atlantic Accord, and why the government chose one option over the other recently in terms of what they would accept from the federal government.

Some questions that we had there, I am not sure if I got exactly the answers – I got the answers, but I am not sure they were answers that we were necessarily pleased with, but we certainly got answers. I really appreciated the explanation of the debt, because I stood in this House a couple of weeks ago and talked about the government having a surplus of $1.4 billion, and where did it go? Because, quite frankly, the average citizen in this Province, I would submit, does not understand. If you were to read only these documents in the Budget, by strict reading of them, unless you have some accounting background or banking background, maybe, even, trying to figure out the general statement that we took $1.4 billion and we put so much down on the debt and we put so much into programming, when you go to do the math on it and you try to figure out where it went, it just did not add up to me.

This morning, the minister tells me - I think it took him two hours, he said, to figure it out himself, how he could put it into wording for me, but he did a fine job this morning of condensing it and explaining where, in fact, it is in these documents. It is not hidden, if you know how to read - once you know how to read and once you understand what you are looking for, as explained by him and the deputy minister this morning, it became fairly clear.

So I appreciated having a better understanding today than I have ever previously had as to how the system is complex and how it works more than I thought. I was not aware, for example, that we still have – apparently in the Province, according to the minister, by the end of this year we are going to have a net debt of about $10 billion. One of the sections is, approximately $3.3 billion of that is for unfunded pension liabilities. I was not aware that, of the debt, we still had unfunded pension liabilities to that extent; because we are all aware that the Accord money, the $2 billion, or $1.9 of it, went into the NLTA pension fund, which reduced that unfunded liability. In fact, again, I learned this morning that the extent of the unfunded liability in the teachers' pension used to be somewhere to the tune of – it was only 22 per cent or 23 per cent funded, according to the minister this morning, and that if they did not do something about that emergency situation, by 2013-2014 the retired teachers of this Province would not have had a pension fund in terms of certainly not getting any money out of the fund. The government would have been on the hook, personally, to pay each and every teacher who was retired, their pension after 2013 if something had not been done with their pension fund. When I heard that number, of course, 22 per cent funded, my next logical question was: Well, what is the proper level of funding in a pension fund? Does it have to be 100 per cent funded? What is acceptable?

Anyway, it was explained that after the $1.9 billion went in – that was the Accord money – the funded portion rose from 22 per cent or 23 per cent up to about 82 per cent; and, according to the deputy minister, that would give some certainty to the retired teachers in the Province that they had a future to look forward to, in terms of their pension, and it would take it out like twenty or thirty years, at least – but there is still an 18 per cent unfunded liability in the teachers' fund.

We are also aware that the government had actually borrowed somewhere around $610 million last year because they put that into the public sector pensions. Aside from the teacher's one, there was the other public sector pensions, and they pumped about five hundred-and-some-odd million into that. Although that one was not in as bad a shape as the teachers, that one was funded about 52 per cent, 53 per cent, but again, when that five hundred-and-some-odd million got dumped in, it took the percentages up to about 82 per cent, 83 per cent again. Both now the public sector pensions and the teachers' pensions are funded in the eighty range, but I was not aware that there is still, of our $10 billion debt - and that is where we are aiming to go by the end of this fiscal year. We are hoping to have $10 billion in net debt, that there is still going to be $3.3 billion of that, roughly one-third, that relates strictly to unfunded pension liabilities and retirement benefits and so on. Obviously, there is still a big nut to crack there and a long ways to go just to put those pension plans into the good standing that they ought to be. That piece was very informative.

There were a couple of issues that I had some concern with and still have. When I was looking at page 35 of this book, called the Estimates book - and that contains the estimates for all the Province, and all the different departments are put into one book called the Estimates. I was asking a question about - on page 35 they talk about financial assistance. Now there are all kinds of little pockets of money in here. There is so much money laid out as to what it costs to have the minister's office, what staff he has and so on in the minister's office. Then there is Executive Support, there is General Administration, there is Financial Planning and Benefits section, there is Taxation and Fiscal Policy section and so on.

Under the Financial Planning and Benefits section there is a heading called Financial Assistance, and it talked about a sum of $13 million, almost $14 million; $13,900,000. What it says there was that it is an amount approved for financial support for Crown agencies and grants to promote business opportunities. My first question when I read that was, just a minute now, we have an industry called ITRD, which promotes and funds business initiatives in the Province. We have a department called the Department of Business, which when we did the Estimates last Wednesday night here, the minister tells me that his Department of Business looks after attraction, they have an attraction fund. I think it is $28 million or something in there for business attraction.

So my question is: Why would we have just about $14 million tucked away in this little pot down in Finance if we already have two departments that deals with internal investment, for example, ITRD and external investment, the Department of Business? I said: Whoa! Because some people, negative thinkers might suggest that is a little slush fund for some reason. That you have $14 million stashed away down in finance and what do you use it for? That was the question I put to the minister this morning. I am not sure, really, if I got a clear answer back. I am not sure if that angle - if I did get a clear answer, other than to say that: Well, there may be things that come up through the year that we did not know about; there might be new initiatives that we did not think about, and whatever. It still seems off the wall to me because if you had a concern that there might be new business initiatives to come along, why wouldn't you gross up the amounts in Industry, Trade and the amounts in Business rather than leaving this separate pot down in Finance?

We certainly had a case here when we did the Business Estimates last year. I think there was something like $28 million there and they never spent a cent.

MS JONES: Thirty-two this year.

MR. PARSONS: Thirty-two million. I am just looking at a little press clipping that came out of The Telegram on May 10 which says there was $32 million that was not touched, according to the minister of the day and still of the current day. I did not understand that. There seems to be some suggestion that there are pots of money floating around and they are not identified in their proper departments, or not explained why they should be under the Department of Finance.

There was another concern - I had a concern, of course, as to pots of money. I looked at another section there called Government Personnel Costs. When I looked under that one there was a big sum then of that, just about $222 million on page 33 of the Estimates under the heading 1.3.01, but I found out what that was. That is where government has negotiated a tentative deal with CUPE on their collective agreement which was announced a few weeks ago. They said we will give you 8 per cent in year one, 4 per cent in year two, 4 per cent in year three and 4 per cent in year four. Of course, if you do the math on that it worked out to be something over $200 million. If you take that figure that was negotiated, and I believe the government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance have been out calling it a template. In order words, that 8, 4, 4 and 4 has been set as a template that is going to be used by all the public sector unions. That works out to less than $25 million or a percentage point. If you do the math, it works out to something over $200 million this year. What it did, of course, is because they do not actually have a deal yet with anybody - they do not have a deal, for example, with CUPE. My understanding is they just have a tentative deal at this point, unless it has been ratified over the weekend and I do not think so. Anyway, they have a tentative deal with CUPE and they have told the rest of the public sector, NAPE, nurses, whatever, that is the template, you are going to get the same thing.

What they have done is they have put into this Budget - and that is my understanding. I surmised back some weeks ago that is why the Budget was being delayed, because we normally have a budget shortly after the feds announce their budget, and certainly within a couple of weeks of the House opening. We opened the House back on March 10, I believe, and we were up some time, the latter part of April. So I figure what was happening was the government was into a year where they were heading into negotiations, they did not know what the figure was going be, they wanted a figure to plug into their budget, so they said: Let's delay the Budget until we strike a deal with someone. Lo and behold, they came out on that particular Thursday - I passed the Minister of Finance actually when I left the House that afternoon. He was coming in to do a press conference out here, a scrum, and he said: We have a tentative deal with CUPE, 8, 4, 4 and 4. Sure enough, that was Thursday afternoon, and when I was going back to my district on Friday morning I get an e-mail at about 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning saying the Budget is going to be announced on Tuesday.

In less than twenty-four hours, once they had that figure of Thursday with CUPE, figures got plugged in, dates were set for budget announcements and away we go. That is the figure - and that is parked there, I call it. That is money - the government got a figure now. We are going to spend a little over $200 million, $222 million roughly, for that wage increase this year. So we park that under Finance, because it is not going to stay there. The minute we cut a deal with CUPE, and we cut a deal with the nurses, and we cut a deal with NAPE, that will get funnelled off then or siphoned off to the respective departments, because the departments then will pay the bills and pay the wage increases that are going to come. At least I know now that there just was not a big slush fund of $222 million parked under Finance. We figured that out, what it was for, and it was verified this morning.

Coming back to the $14 million pot; as I say, I do not understand why we have $14 million parked there to promote business opportunities when there are so many other departments that promote business opportunities, and have their Web sites and have all their criteria. I know under the Industry Trade Department, for example, there are numerous different initiatives that are over there for people who want to start a business, and I do not know why the Finance have to have their own.

The other piece that surprised me about the $14 million was, it says: Appropriations also provide for initiatives which are consistent with the objectives of the Community Development Trust, with relevant funding transferred to departments during the year as required. That rang a bell when I saw the Community Development Trust, because I had heard that somewhere else in the recent past. I had seen it in press releases, but where I had really heard it recently was from Minister Hearn, the federal regional minister, because he was in my district of Port aux Basques a few weeks ago for the Marine Atlantic announcement on the new ferry. At that time there were meetings that took place and the council out there had some initiatives they want some money for. What they were asking was: Are there any pots of money floating around the federal government that we might be able to access to help us with these initiatives? Minister Hearn said: oh, yes, we just recently announced the Community Development Trust. That is where I had heard the phrase before. Most recently it was from the minister.

I asked him and he said: oh, yes, we gave a big pot of money, the national government, the federal government, and we carved out a piece of it for Newfoundland and Labrador. We carved out $23.4 million and that is gone to your Province this year. Now, that is not for a number of years, that is the amount that this Province is going to get for this year only, $23.4 million. Sure enough, I look under the section here and it talks about revenues and it says federal, 19.4, and there was another 5.5 left over.

What was explained to me this morning was that yes indeed this Province has received $23.5 million from the federal government this year under the Community Development Trust. The problem we have right now, and I suspect it is going to be a problem come the end of the year, is that we do not know what we can spend it on and nobody else in the Province knows right now what they can spend it on, because the criteria or the guidelines that have to be followed between the Province and the federal government have not been worked out. There are some general guidelines and that was confirmed this morning by the Deputy of Finance. There have been some generic, shall we say, general principles enunciated that we will be able to use it for, but we do not have the final criteria and we do not have the guidelines. What we will do is we will give you the money. That is what Finance has done, they have parked this money down here until the details get worked out.

Now, that raises some concern again, because number one they are not putting- I could not understand it. We were getting 23.5, why was there only a showing here of 19.4 coming from the government because we are missing a few million dollars. It was explained to me, no, apparently they did not put it all under Finance. There was about four million that went directly to Natural Resources because Natural Resources have some specified initiatives that they intend to undertake. I believe one of them is the possible pellet plant up on the Northern Peninsula. Albeit I noticed in the media in the last few days Minister Taylor was out saying the pellet plant was going to be done and the Minister of Natural Resources is out saying, I do not know what they are talking about because it certainly has not been approved by us and we have the money. Again, I question sometimes whether one hand knows what the other hand is doing. Minister Taylor's words, I believe I read yesterday in The Independent. He said, well, maybe I jumped the gun. I would call that a big jump of the gun if you are up in your district announcing that you are going to put a pellet plant up there and the minister who has the money says, no, we have not finished the assessment on it yet, no, we have not made any final decisions on whether the project is going to fly and we certainly have not made any decision as to where it is going to go.

Anyway, that is where $4 million apparently of that Community Development Trust money went. It went into Natural Resources. I am concerned, you know, because we are talking about money here, we are talking here about a tax bill. There is all kinds of money that comes into this Province and there is certainly, I understand, liberty here to talk money and we are certainly talking money here from the federal government.

So, $4 million went to Natural Resources, $19.4 million funnels into the Department of Finance, but of the $19.4 million they are only talking about spending $14 million of it this year. So there is the question of the balance - what is that? Five point five million that is still not going to be used. There is a lot of loosey-goosey things about this Community Development Trust. Someone gives you $23.5 million, you do not spend it all this year - maybe that it the prudent thing to do - but you cannot tell anybody what the criteria are as to access it, and you just funnel it away down here. Now, that concerns me. I am looking forward - hopefully I will be around next year this time when we do the Estimates again. I am going to be anxious to find out from the minister how much of that money was spent on Community Development Trust. It will be interesting to see if any of that money so-called for community development does indeed get spent.

Aside from criteria, a big question here is: Does each and every one of these projects have to be approved by the Province and the federal government, or is it a case that the federal government and the Province work out the criteria and then the provincial government has the total say in the project approvals? Because it is federal money in a way that came to the Province, are there going to be strings attached, that the person who puts forward their project has to meet guidelines to qualify, but then they have to satisfy again both governments, like ACOA, for example? A lot of time you have to have approval from the Province and approval from the feds because that is going to delay things again, if the rules are not clear and the rules are not tight on that. We are looking forward to seeing that.

The other thing I was going to mention as well, talking about money here again, and that was – last week we talked about – the minister explained you can only do so much for everybody, and we pointed out this morning that since 2004 up till today, in programming costs in this Province, what you pay for your hospital, your health care, your educational costs, it might even be an oil rebate program, it might be an oil tank replacement program, different programs that government has that they fund, since 2004, and I raised this in my earlier speech a couple of weeks ago, the programming costs by this government have gone up to the tune of 45 per cent, in the 40s, percentages that it has gone up. I put it to the minister this morning: That is a pretty steep increase. He acknowledged that, yes, this is a concern. It is fine in times of lots of money to have money going into programs like that. It is fine to give increases for programming, but there has to be some caution accompanying that. What happens if you ratchet up your expenses today and then four years out you do not get the oil revenues that you got? All of a sudden, you are left in a very tenuous situation where you have committed to do things to people and for people but all of a sudden you do not have as much money in the till.

I guess it is analogous to, you buy a house today based upon your income and you find out after you have the mortgage documents signed that you lost your job. The question is: Can I keep the same house or not? That is a pretty tough situation and that is what we have here. I raised it because that is a flag in a way. You can say, oh, the Opposition are some hypocrites, they get over there one day screeching and bawling for this and that and something else to be added to programs and on the other hand they are over there saying, be cautious because you are ratcheting up the program expenses. So be it, you still have got to ask the questions. Albeit you might be here today asking for something that is a perfectly legitimate expense, it does not take away from the fact that you have to be cautious when you do ratchet them up, to make sure you make the right decisions. Just because you have to be cautious about ratcheting up your expenses, that should trigger government to think, what can we do to bring in more revenues, so that even if we lose money on revenue because the price of a barrel of oil goes down or production in the oil fields go down, what are the other arrows we have in our quiver, or projects to bring in money so that we do not have to cut any programs?

That is the piece, I believe, the Opposition were trying to get across last week: that there seems to be very little in the Budget…. We hear lots of talk about - even here, this is the bill that is going to give life to the 1 per cent tax reduction in the three different categories. We can talk about that, and we can talk about the fact that you are going to drop the price of registering a car from $180 down to $140, but the bottom line is, we are looking for and we are asking government to show us where are the other initiatives and planning so that - where are the rural development initiatives so that if the bottom falls out of the barrel, literally, the bottom falls out of the barrel when it comes to the oil barrel price, what are we going to do to keep the money in the till?

The minister has acknowledged that is a substantial increase, and by the time we get to 2010 I think it is going to be even worse - not only think, we know it is going to get worse - because the template for public sector wages that the government has put on the table based on the CUPE tentative deal is going to add two hundred and some-odd million to the wage bill this year, but by the time the life of that agreement is over, four years out, we will have added to the wage bill only in this Province something like $500 million. So, right now we know that from today on a go-forward basis, four years out, based on that contract, that template that the government has put out there, there is going to be half a billion dollars in expenses that do not exist today but will exist then. The question is: Where will we be - and I guess that is always on the mind of the Minister of Finance - where are we going to be four years out when it comes to paying that half a billion dollars?

In the meantime, there were also a few things in the Budget, or not in the Budget would probably be more accurate, that were not dealt with. I have heard members on the Open Line shows, government members, I have heard ministers on the Open Line shows, and I have read reports in newspapers where they have gone to tout the blessings of the Budget. Do you know what? The first couple of days I heard everybody out saying the Budget is fantastic - and there were some good things in there, which we have acknowledged in Opposition, some pretty nice stuff there, but it is amazing, when you listen to the news reports and the media, and you listen to the Open Line shows, the negative reactions that you hear from just about every stakeholder group in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: You have heard a lot.

I say to the minister, I heard one gentleman who is involved with one society, for example, two minutes after the Budget was read, I heard him out saying to the media: Oh, we are very pleased with the Budget, a very good move, looking after people with the oxygen. Within minutes of the Budget he publicly is on record: We are very pleased. Our group – the Lung Association, I believe it was, saying – we are very pleased with this.

Lo and behold, it is like the former Government House Leader used to always say, the devil is in the details. The former Member for Kilbride used to always say, the devil is in the details. Sure enough, once the President of the Lung Association had a chance to go off and look at the documents, ask some questions, get his Executive Director involved, and say: Just exactly what is this program going to do for us, on the oxygen? What is it going to do? I think it became factual then, that there are actually about 4,200 people in the Province who have oxygen needs. I am not sure if it is 2,200 or 4,200. I think it is 4,200.

When you size it all up, this program that the government came out and raved about for oxygen, and that this gentleman thought was a great deal, all of a sudden you started to say: Just a minute, now. That might have addressed a small segment of the people that need oxygen. Oh yes, that impacts only the people who happen to be getting social assistance. That is not going to do anything for the citizens of this Province who are on fixed incomes, not social assistance, but still have oxygen and need oxygen.

The immediate reaction was positive, but when you get down to the details that is where some people were not as pleased as they initially were.

That is like home care. On private members' day here we debated home care. In fact, it was put to the floor here only last Wednesday, I do believe. We had a full afternoon debate on it last Wednesday. It was even suggested in an amendment, a friendly amendment by the Member for Port de Grave, I believe, that not only would we address the home care but he proposed an emergency solution to it. Lo and behold, thirty members of the government stood up - thirty members, they actually stood up. They didn't even just vote from their seats; they stood up. They are on record; they wanted their names recorded in the transcripts of Hansard. That is great stuff, that is, because this is going to be great. If you go out and meet somebody in home care - and we do when we travel around the Province - if I meet somebody now from Gander, for example, who needs home care, and I say: I am sorry, I can't help you. We tried to do something and we suggested an emergency measure, but maybe you should go talk to the Member for Gander because he was one of the ones who stood on his feet and no. That is recorded. He cannot ever - in perpetuity, that Member for Gander can never stand up and say that he voted

for home care. He voted against it, and the records of Hansard will prove it. I have a copy of that printed off. I am going to take that with me because throughout the summer, no doubt, we will be travelling all around the Province and we are going to get asked that by people on home care: How come we couldn't get more for home care?

Again, the positive Budget that we had, there are a few little kernels in there, and people and associations that, when we get into the details, it did not go where we thought it was going to go. I just mentioned two. One was the oxygen piece. The other one was the home care piece.

Anybody in this Province, including the government members, who listen to the Open Line shows and listen to the media and read the editorials in the local papers, particularly the Robinson-Blackmore papers – I don't know if it is not as prevalent in the urban areas or what, but the Robinson-Blackmore newspapers - the editorials that I have been reading, the letters to the editor, I should say, that I have been reading, tell a different story on home care. They tell a far different story.

Then there is the nurses' issue. I mean, that has been going and coming for the last number of weeks, ever since this House opened, the nurses, because we took another private member's motion in this House and said – I think it was the first private member's motion of the session, and we said - we do not think there should be pattern bargaining for everybody. We thought there might be some special circumstances that the government might want to deal with somebody on what they call a one-off basis. Rather than talk templates, or rather than talk pattern bargaining, there might be circumstances where you could justify something different - for example, the nurses – and that was the intent and that was the nature of the private member's motion that was put forth in the beginning of this session.

Some of the unions did not like it very well. Some of the unions got very upset. NAPE, and I believe a certain gentleman, Mr. Anstey, was out saying: What is the Opposition doing? Tell them to keep their nose out of that. That is all at the table.

Now, I am on record – I have not had a chance to speak with the gentleman, but I certainly spoke with the lady who heads up NAPE, and said: With all due respect, I disagree with that. If I am going to be coming in here in the House and I have people who ask me, in my district, and people who approach me as Opposition critic for the Department of Finance, and say, we don't agree with pattern bargaining, and I am not allowed to get up and talk about it because some union is down having negotiations, I don't think that is very open and accountable and I certainly do not intend to be stifled because somebody might be upset because we talk about it and point out what various options are.

Lo and behold, the government is out there now with their CUPE deal. They said, no pattern bargaining. This is only going to be one size fits all. That is what they have said, and that is why the figure is now showing up on page 33 of the Budget saying exactly that. Even in the last couple of weeks since they announced the CUPE deal, or the tentative deal with CUPE and the tentative pattern that they are going to use, we have seen this Province budge off that. That is in the pathologists and the oncologists, because it was not a week ago, was not a week ago - we have a binding agreement right now with the medical association, which I do believe includes the pathologists and the oncologists. I thought we did that last year. There is an agreement on that. Lo and behold, the Premier is out last week, and the Minister of Health saying: Whoa! Within a week, we will be back to you. You have a special circumstance. You have a special circumstance and we are going to look at why we should give more money to the pathologists and the oncologists. Guess what? This person does not disagree with that. I believe we have an emergency situation. I have spoken with Dr. Danek. Dr. Danek has spoken to the Opposition Office. We understand the plight that the oncologists and the pathologists are in, but I just use it as an example to show that government talks out of both sides of their face, too. They are out saying you are going to get a pattern, and then they turn around within the week of the Budget and break the pattern. That is the only reason I point it out.

Now, just go back again. Rewind this a few seconds to about the nurses. These are the same nurses, by the way, who have other issues. They are out on a protest out in Bonavista, last Thursday I do believe, because they are being asked to do what they figure was clerical work, administrative work and not nursing duties, and why should they be doing it? The minister says yes, he confirmed. In fact, there are nurses out in Bonavista that they get to do accounting work, clerical work, and they are upset about it. Again, I go back to the nurses. That is exactly what they are saying. If we have special circumstances, why wouldn't government treat us differently, like they are going to do with the pathologists and the oncologists? They did it there. They are going to do it there. The Premier is on record as saying we are going to do something for them.

So, it is tough sometimes when you take a stance. We are not going to give you a special deal because you are not special, but we are going to give you a special deal because you are special. Everybody else, the majority: Yes, back off, you are not special. Well, I guess we will see in due course where the nurses stand and whether the nurses think they are special or not and whether they have special concerns, and I guess the government will see. From what I am seeing and, in fact, what I heard - I think the minister sort of questioned when I said not everybody liked the Budget.

I go back again to that day the Budget was announced and the media were outside doing the scrums with the various stakeholders. I do not think Ms Forward of the Nurses' Union gave it all thumbs up. I do not think she was overcome with the good news. In fact, I do think she said - the words she used, if I could quote: There is nothing in this for us - something to that effect. So, that is another one. I have only gotten to two yet; the oxygen and the nurses who were not exactly enthralled by the Budget and the home care.

Then another private members thing we dealt with here, we talked about education. I thought a very good proposal was put forward. You talk about helping, really giving a break - and I do not have an answer back from the Minister of Education or the Minister of Finance yet but it is an interesting - even if just for debate purposes and discussion purposes. Why should a person pay interest on a student loan if they are not in default? Now we are not talking about free education. We are not talking about that you never pay back your student loan. We are not saying that the days of old when in Joey Smallwood's time you go to university and you get free tuition. We are not saying that. What we are suggesting here is, why wouldn't you, if you give out the loan, if you give out that loan and somebody graduates, right now, I believe - at least in my time when I went I had to start paying the loan back within six months of graduation. I believe that rule still remains the same. So, why wouldn't you just say to a student: yes, you graduate, you go to work, you pay back your loan but I will tell you what, as long as you are in good standing, as long as you do not default, we will not charge you any interest on a loan. Now what a perk you could really make for the students of this Province. What a benefit you could really give to students here if as long as you are good - what did we lose? We did not lose anything. We invested whatever millions it was to educate our population and we are going to get every penny of the principal back and if you do not pay back the principal, he or she who defaults, you pay the interest. We had that issue. That was not addressed.

The Municipal Affairs department, now that was probably - other than the insurance tax of 15 per cent which was, and I have said this publicly, a very good break for the consumers of this Province. At least anybody who has insurance of any kind, it is certainly a break. The other one was for the communities of this Province under the new Municipal Affairs formula for funding so that instead of paying for things on a 50-50 basis they are going to pay for it on a 90-10 basis, depending on population. If you are less than 3,000, it is 90-10. If you are between three and seven you pay 80-20. If you are above seven - again, I believe it is only 30 per cent, then it is 70-30. That is a very good break for the communities. It is a very good break for the taxpayers within those communities, and that is who ultimately pays the community percentages of course.

The other thing nice about that new formula is that it is going to apply to local service districts as well, not just to communities. Quite frankly, there are a lot of municipalities in the Province who had trouble coming up with their 50 per cent, so you can imagine the difficulty that a local service district had coming up with 50 per cent. They just did not have the resources at all. Most local service districts - I do not know of a local service district in this Province that has any more than 3,000 people in it. I would be surprised if there were any. Anybody who has those kinds of numbers, I would think, are incorporated. Therefore, local service districts are all looking at a 90-10 deal as opposed to anything else, and that is going to be very beneficial to them.

The only question I had - and I have raised this with the minister privately - is the timing of the proposals. I am aware, for example, in my own district, municipalities have their applications in, they were supposed to have them in, I believe, by the end of December. That has all been done. We had an issue for many, many years about we had to get the approvals out on projects because otherwise, if we are late getting out the approvals, by the time it has to go to the public tendering process and by the time it gets approved under public tendering, you often find yourself running late in the construction season. That was a big, big issue.

I noticed the minister put the ones out for communities that have multi-year funding. That was announced a couple of weeks ago. They are done. At least they are in the chute now. People know where they are going to go and hopefully those will get up and get tendered. There are only so many contractors in the Province, and that is where another problem runs in. Because the big boys on the block or the big girls on the block have their multi-year funding, they are going to get ahead of the game and get the tendering done and the awards will be done. There are other communities - like in my district, for example, I do not have any approvals on any projects yet in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. Now I would expect - he has told me: Oh, yes. No problem. Sit tight, it will come. The concern that the communities have is, what is the timeliness of it? If that approval does not come until - we are into the latter part of May. Today is May 12. If they do not come in May month you are looking at – what? - thirty days on public tendering. You are up to the end of June. If people are busy and other contractors are gone off doing other jobs, we could find ourselves again, come fall - it is going to be like the stretch of road between Burgeo & LaPoile and Stephenville East. There is one stretch of road where the contractor found himself putting down asphalt in December. I can tell you where that asphalt is to come March and April, because I have driven over it. Here they were, they had to put it down just to get through the winter. That is because again of the late tendering projects. The formula, fantastic! The timeliness of getting the approvals done for the various communities, at this point still leaves something to be desired.

I only have a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I will raise one issue here. Again it strikes the District of Burgeo & LaPoile in Port aux Basques, and that concerns the dialysis issue. Port aux Basques has been asking Western Health for ten years plus for some kind of dialysis service. We have seen numerous people trek back and forth; many of them, by the way, paid for by the government. I know there was one gentleman – he has since passed on – a young lad who traveled from Port aux Basques to Corner Brook five times a week for dialysis; five times. Every day him and his mom were picked up by a taxi and taken to Corner Brook. He spent four to five hours on a dialysis machine and he was brought back to Port aux Basques again. That went on for years, but eventually he passed on.

There have been studies done. We have asked Western Health, for example: What are the numbers? Because they told us back when there was a numbers game. That was about four years ago. They said, you have to have a certain number of people using dialysis to justify putting some kind of system or program in your local hospital. We said: Okay. Everybody in the Province who was playing that game was on a numbers game. Then all of a sudden it seems like that does not apply anymore. In the last couple of years we got a dialysis going down to Grand Bank and we got a dialysis machine going up in St. Anthony. When I make inquiries and say, what are the numbers up in St. Anthony, because we were told you had to have x numbers? How do the St. Anthony numbers compare? Because, if it is based on numbers I would think if Port aux Basques needed ten and St. Anthony needed five, or ten users versus five, I would think it would have gone where the greatest need was.

I cannot get the answers to those questions. We have asked, and no, no, no, no, once you got into asking those questions the ball game got changed, the rules got changed. They said: No, no, it is not just based on numbers anymore. There are other factors and considerations. What are they? The consultants know that. They will tell you all that. They are gone off to do another study now to tell us what we can and cannot do for your area. Well, I have been ten years waiting for Western Health, to see what they are going to do about the dialysis. The mayor of Port-Aux-Basques out there, Mr. Button, is screaming his head off. We will not have to worry about it soon, because what is happening now, and it is sad to say this, but it is taking such a toll on the users in the area that they have uprooted their families and moved. That is a pretty sad solution to an issue, when you have asked politely for so long, you have made your case and you have pleaded and the facts and the circumstances are there and you see things happening in some other areas of the Province, but yet you do not seem to have the justifications that would have been justifications some years ago but are no longer adequate justification. You see these people uprooting their families and moving because they got tired of trekking back from Rose Blanche or Port-Aux-Basques into Corner Brook five times a week in the back of a taxi cab.

There is one gentleman, sad to say, who I just sent out condolences to his family, who did exactly that. Utter frustration, trying to help the gentleman for the last number of years because of the dialysis machine!

In the few minutes I have left, I noticed today – and we are talking money here, and that is why it is very, very important. I had my bill here, Mr. Speaker, but I just misplaced it for a second. We are talking about money and budgets and what we spend your money on and so on, and we cannot use it for everything. I guess the concern that the Opposition parties have is that it seemed in some cases that the priorities were not right. We can argue about this till the cows come home, as to what the right priorities are; and somebody has to set them.

One gentleman put it to me this weekend when I was home, about home care. I guess you can look at it that way too and say that he has a point, and you look at it again and you say maybe he is being a bit unreasonable. He said: Do you realize they are putting over $15 million into a caribou study? $15 million dollars into a caribou study! He said: I am here trying to look after my wife. He is in his seventies, himself. He has issues himself, medically, and cannot get sufficient home care to help with his wife. I did not have an answer for that gentleman. I tried to say, well, government has all kinds of priorities, we have got to try to figure out something too, because there is another stakeholder group, hunters and outfitters, who have concerns with the caribou. He said, I realize that, but do we need to spend $15 million to study the caribou? There are some old fellows out there who will tell you, not old fellows but young fellows, that if you look at the coyote and the black bear you pretty well have your answer as to what is happening with the caribou. You do not need some consultant paid $15 million to go out and tell you what the issue is. Those in this House who are hunters, I guess, and who have done any amount of hunting would pretty well confirm that.

I know personally I travel the Burgeo roadway at least a couple of times a month and I never ever in my life saw a coyote until about three years ago, when I saw a coyote. As you come up the Burgeo road which is pretty barren, I saw what looked to me to be a dog but was confirmed by my passenger to be a coyote. Do you know what? When I went to Burgeo on Friday past for their high school grad I saw three coyote crossing the Burgeo highway. Now, that is in a matter of two or three years. I never ever saw one before that, and I am pretty good at spotting moose and whatever else flies or moves, pretty good at that. I never saw the one, only that one, and all of a sudden I see three coyote in one day. Guess what? The Minister of Environment and Conservation can tell you that based on the current figures. The caribou herds in South Western Newfoundland are pretty well decimated, pretty well decimated.

Anyway, that gentleman had his concerns about his $15 million and whether we should put it into a caribou study or put it into some home care; and I know where he sat. He was not one of the ones out applauding the Budget, he was not out applauding the $15 million in the caribou study that is in the Budget, he had other concerns on health care.

Then there is the question of spending money like the Cameron Inquiry that is on the go for the health care situation now. I mean, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of this Province actually went on an open line show last Friday in this Province and said, we have a request by Madam Justice Cameron to extend the Inquiry out to February of 2009, and we would like to have this thing done expeditiously and we are questioning whether we need or should agree to that. Mr. Speaker, that is fraught with a lot of difficulty, a lot of difficulty. This government, back in May of 2007 - when the hormone receptor thing came to being, we stood in this House for two weeks and pleaded with this government to have a judicial inquiry. We were told all kinds of things. There were all kinds of statements made to the media, but eventually, I think it was May 22 or May 23 of 2007, the government relented and said: We will have a judicial inquiry. We are going to appoint Justice Margaret Cameron, an eminent jurist in this Province – was and still is. She went off, hired her own counsel, a lady and a gentleman, Ms Chaytor, I do believe, and Mr. Bern Coffey. They said, here are the rules. The government gave them the terms of reference, by the way, as I understand it. The government gave them the terms of reference, and she said, here are the rules we are going to work under.

All of a sudden we get the minister saying, now, when things are, I would suggest, getting a bit hot and heavy for the government – because every day there are news reports on the evening news, there are news reports on the printed media, and the Minister of Health has been here under fire repeatedly by the Leader of the Opposition and the media - what has happened now? All of a sudden we get the Premier out saying, whoa, we don't have an inquiry any more; some people are saying this might be a witch hunt – might be a witch hunt - and the word inquisition being used.

Now, never in my life have I ever heard any government, any government member, any Premier, any Prime Minister, any minister of the Crown, ever question the propriety or the actions of a commission. It is a judicial body. This government set it up. This government said: Here are the terms of reference; go to it.

Number one, the impropriety of what is going on here with the Premier and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General out even questioning the conduct of the inquiry is outside the bounds of anything proper - absolutely improper – and I even said as much on the Open Line shows last week, when I went on after the minister to respond.

I thought the Attorney General absolutely did bring the administration of justice into disrepute with his comments, absolutely. This minister wears two hats. He wears one of a Minister of Justice. He wears one of an Attorney General. Now, I do not know if he thought he was toting the Premier's suitcase last week, or briefcase or whatever, but, I will tell you, it was not lost on the people of this Province that, when you have the Minister of Justice and Attorney General out making these kinds of comments against an inquiry, it is absolutely improper, unacceptable, and they let it be known in no uncertain terms.

Now, Mr. Rowe certainly put the minister is his stead, because I think normally he figured we would call in and we might get an innocent, sympathetic ear in Mr. Rowe, but he did not get a sympathetic ear because Mr. Rowe – I do not know the gentleman personally, I met him maybe once, but there is no doubt that Mr. Rowe certainly spoke his mind on what he thought about the Minister of Justice and Attorney General interfering in the judicial process.

By the way, this minister knows in his own heart and his soul that he crossed the line. This minister knows what he said last week on Open Line was not proper. The Minister of Justice, certainly the Attorney General, he should not have been on the Open Line making the comments that he did last week.

The other thing I would like to know - because this minister said on Friday, on the Open Line, the expense was an issue. I do not know if there was any price tag put on this inquiry. I do not remember anything in the terms of reference that said you must limit yourself to a certain amount of dollars. I do not think we did that in the Lamer Inquiry. We had a Turner inquiry, where they investigated the death of Zachary Turner. That cost a substantial amount of money. I do not believe anybody put any price tags on justice. I do not think anybody ever told a judge in this Province.

It would be interesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, I don't know. The current Minister of Justice appeared as counsel in the Lamer Inquiry. We heard a clip this morning on CBC about how he treated Justice Lamer, and what Justice Lamer said back to him. He wasn't too pleased with his actions at that time.

My understanding - and I stand to be corrected - was that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador paid not only Justice Lamer and paid counsel to that inquiry, whom I believe was Mr. Avis, there was also another gentleman, I do believe, from Ontario who was involved as a counsel, yes, I do believe Commission counsel. His name escapes me right now, but I understand that the government also paid for the lawyers for Mr. Parsons, Mr. Druken and Mr. Dalton.

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Minister of Finance is saying something, but I cannot hear.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Ratushny.

MR. PARSONS: Ratushny, that is his name, Mr. Ratushny, who was there along with Mr. Avis as counsel to Mr. Lamer.

My understanding was that the Commission also paid, or the government also paid, a certain portion of the cost for the counsel for the three gentlemen they were inquiring about: Mr. Parsons, Mr. Dalton and –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the minister was okay, then, the current minister – it would be interesting to know, what did he charge?

We hear the Premier up today, saying: Oh, Mr. Coffey has submitted a bill of $442,000 - too expensive.

Well, I don't know; I guess expense is determined on the quality of what you are getting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: One of them. I am assuming it is Mr. Coffey. If not, clarify it for us: how much was paid out, and to whom?

Maybe the minister did not have a problem back then, if he got paid. You do not put a price tag on justice. You do not say, stop the inquiry because Mr. Kennedy is down there charging too much to the department. You did not say that.

We found ourselves in a situation, as a government, where someone, for example, was charged with murder and we would only give them a lawyer at Legal Aid rates, and a Supreme Court Justice said: No, no, no, not good enough. He is going to have his own counsel.

He was appointed his own counsel and he chose Mr. Buckingham in that instance. We did not have any control over Mr. Buckingham's fees. We wanted to. We did not want to be out spending taxpayers' money like water. We did not say yes, you can charge whatever you like. We tried to negotiate a fee with him. We tried to get him to abide by the Legal Aid fees, but that did not work.

I say to the minister, it is absolutely improper to suggest that you shut down the Cameron inquiry because it might cost too much. You do not put a price on justice. It is like the Premier said today, when he talked about this lady who shows up down at – today, Ms Brazil, I do believe was her name, reported in the media, saying: Whoa, you are inducing evidence; cross-examination is not permitted.

Well, I say to the Premier, I am not Perry Mason or anybody else, and do not pretend to be, but you have counsel inquiry down there. There is a gentleman, I do believe, a very competent gentleman, out of the Department of Justice, named Mr. Pritchard. If you had a concern about the inducement of evidence, and if you thought cross-examination should not be taking place like it is, before you go off making your comments about witch hunts and persecutions, you should have had your counsel making the applications prior to that, not coming down after the fact, after you went out and said that it is a witch hunt, after you said it is like an inquisition, after the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has been on Open Lines saying he questions what is happening down there. That process should have been followed by the counsel commissioned last week, not this week, when a lady shows up this morning, apparently, Ms Brazil, and says: I want to make an application.

The inquiry says: Who do you represent? She could not even say who she was there to represent. Did those instructions take place on the doorstep this morning when she came in to work, or what?

It is not good enough for the Premier to say, thank you very much, we are going to bring the rules in line now and make an application. I suggest that was put in place after the Premier said what he said, which he should not have, and after what the Minister of Justice did, which he should not have done.

Things are getting a bit too tight, and you can look to all the scapegoats you want about, it costs too much or they are not following rules. The bottom line is, we struck the inquiry; the inquiry should be allowed to do the job that it was given the terms of reference to do.

I would suggest, at the end of the day, I do not know what the motivation was, but Justice Margaret Cameron, Commissioner Cameron will set the record straight on this one in short term. The Premier already said himself today that she has overruled that inducement argument a couple of times, so I see no reason why she is going to treat this one any differently.

In any case, my time is just about out. I have twenty-eight seconds left. I am sure there will be no leave forthcoming from the government. No, in fairness to the Government House Leader, whenever I have asked for leave he has always consented to it and the rest of the members as well. I think my sixty minutes now speaking on this issue is enough, but those comments need to be said.

I say again to the Minister of Justice, in the long term, at the end of the day, he will in his own heart and soul say that he did the wrong thing on Friday. He might never, ever admit it, but he knows that he did not do the right thing on Friday and that is not a course of action, I would suggest, that he would have followed if he had his rudders.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have heard the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile talk about a lot of things. I did not hear too much about personal income tax cuts. I do not know where he stands on the bill, but anyway it was all very interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay, so I take it he is in favour of the act.

Mr. Speaker, there was discussion about unfunded pension liability and financial assistance. I think I will deal with the financial assistance because I do not want the people of the Province to get the wrong impression.

Under Financial Assistance in the Department of Finance there is a place where, for many years, under Grants and Subsidies, it says that this heading is to provide for financial support for Crown agencies and grants to promote business opportunities. For many years this particular heading has included a $350,000 grant to the Pippy Park Commission. That is what has been under that head. I think it would be helpful to look at some of the other things under that particular heading to see where this money is going. We will do 2008-2009, the total, as the member said, was $13,900,000.

In addition to the operating grant to Pippy Park, this includes $1.9 million to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro under the Northern Strategic Plan for an electricity rebate for home owners who use diesel-generated power. This initiative was to allow the people on coastal Labrador to have the same rates as people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the same electricity rates and I do not think there is anyone in this House who would think that that was an inappropriate spending of government money to help the people in coastal Labrador who have heavy, heavy costs of living, who particularly have higher energy costs. I do not think anyone would deny us providing support to those people in an effort to deal with the basic lifeline block of electricity.

In addition to that, there is money for grants. As the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile said, there are from time to time initiatives that come before government that do not qualify under other government programs, such as in the Department of Business, such as in the Department of INTRD. As a matter of fact, money has been transferred from this particular account to INTRD to help them top up an initiative to support the construction of an initiative under some of their programs.

Also, the money from the Community Development Trust is there. That was $23.4 million that came to us from the federal government under the Community Economic Trust, which of course was a trust fund set up by the Government of Canada and applied across the country. I think there was a base to every province of $10 million and then after that it was based on per capita. I said at the time that I preferred that method of allocating funds across the country rather than to do it totally on a per capita basis. So, we had a base and then it is based on per capita after that. That certainly helps the smaller populated provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, as you can see, the money when it was announced was sent to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It had to go somewhere, and it came into the Department of Finance; $4 million of it went to the Department of Natural Resources so that Minister Dunderdale could announce her initiative to help the forestry industry in this Province. As you can see, the monies in this account go for very worthwhile projects and that there is nothing untoward here.

Mr. Speaker, we have one more act, I understand, that we have to introduce today to further reduce the taxes that people of this Province have to pay. So without further ado, I will urge passage of this particular act, the amended Income Tax Act, and look forward to the next one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 26, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 26)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call order number 8 now, which would be second reading of Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act." (Bill 28)

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

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

It is a pleasure for me to stand to speak to second reading of Bill 28, which is an act to amend the retail sales tax act, but the real effect of this act is to eliminate the 15 per cent retail sales tax on insurance. That is the third measure today that is going to put money back in the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: The amendment in Bill 28 is something that the taxpayers in this Province have been strongly advocating over the past couple of years. With this bill, the sales tax on insurance premiums is eliminated, effective for contracts of insurance that were commenced or renewed as of January 1, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that when I did the pre-budget consultations for the first time, when I first became Minister of Finance and I toured the Province, what I heard from people last year was that they wanted to see the motor vehicle registrations reduced back to $140 from $180, but when I did the pre-budget consultations this year and had a chance to cover the entire Province, because the previous year Minister Sullivan had carried out the pre-budget consultations in Eastern Newfoundland and I did the ones in Western Newfoundland and Labrador. This year I had the opportunity to do them all, from St. John's and Bay Roberts, and right across Central and the West Coast and Labrador. What I heard this year is that people, more than anything else, told me that they wanted to get rid of this particular tax.

Mr. Speaker, for contracts of insurance that commenced or were renewed after January 1, a refund of taxes already paid will be made available. The insurer or the insurance agent, as the case may be, who collected the tax from the client will refund the tax and will seek reimbursement from the government.

Mr. Speaker, officials of the Department of Finance have worked with the insurance industry to ensure that the tax refunds are processed as quickly as possible. This has created a short-term compliance burden for the industry, but I am pleased to say they have taken it on willingly and they are working to provide refunds as soon as possible.

As I said, during the pre-Budget consultations, removal of the tax on insurance was a recurring theme. Many people felt that there are fair taxes and unfair taxes, but most people thought that this particular tax was unfair. Fortunately, we now have the fiscal capacity, the fiscal flexibility, to eliminate that tax.

Mr. Speaker, the removal of the 15 per cent tax on insurance will put $94 million back in the hands of people of this Province this year and $75 million annually thereafter. This measure will benefit every household, every business, every small business, every community, every municipality, every volunteer organization, and every person in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation, the tax on insurance, goes back to 1952 when there was a tax under the fire premiums act. That, then, became something called the Insurance Premiums Act, and then it was included in the Retail Sales Tax Act. When the federal government brought in the GST - and we have two taxes in the Province; we have the RST and the GST - the GST was a pretty broad-based taxes because it is a value-added tax. To have a value-added tax that is fair, the idea is to have a very broad-based tax and that way you can keep the tax low. If you start giving exemptions or exceptions, then the tax rate starts going higher.

There were then discussions to blend the taxes, to blend them together, and there was finally an agreement where Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and P.E.I. agree with the federal government to harmonize their Provincial Sales Tax with the federal GST.

As I said before, I believe they intended to call the tax a blended sales tax, the BS tax, but for some reason they decided not to use that name and instead went with what is called the Harmonized Sales Tax or the HST. When they went to that tax, they agreed to use the tax base under the GST and that did not include insurance, so under the HST insurance products were not taxed.

The government of the day, given the fact that its share of the sales tax revenue would go from 12 per cent, which was what it was under the retail sales tax, down to 8 per cent, because that was a big loss of revenue for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, they decided to keep the retail sales tax on insurance and also on the sale of used cars, but they increased it from 12 per cent to 15 per cent.

Some people feel that, by increasing it from 12 per cent to 15 per cent they were, in essence, hiding the tax. There was not too much uproar about it until such time as the Harper government reduced the federal part of the HST, when they reduced that down from I think it was originally 7 per cent and they reduced it down to 6 per cent, and a couple of people wondered what was going on. Two years later, I think, two or three years later, the federal share of the HST went down from 6 per cent to 5 per cent. Now some more people wondered what was going on because they were paying their insurance bill and were wondering why they were paying 15 per cent tax on the insurance bill when they knew that the HST was only 13 per cent.

When people discovered this, there was an uproar. When people looked at it, they noticed that Newfoundland and Labrador was one of the only provinces charging this particular tax and people felt it was unfair. The government listened and we have now brought this legislation forward which will eliminate the 15 per cent tax. What it does is put money in people's pockets.

A tax is a tax. Government needs revenue. The only way government gets revenue is from the people of this Province through taxes and through fees, and not only the people, of course; the business and the corporations that do business in the Province get taxed as well.

When we lower taxes we have less revenue, but we need revenue to operate our hospitals. We need revenue to pay our police officers. We need revenue to do the $5.7 million worth of things that government is doing this year under the Budget that we recently brought down.

Revenue is needed, so a balance has to be accomplished between government taxing the people and getting revenues to do the things the people want government to do, and also ensuring that the people are not overburdened and that they do not pay too much of a tax.

We now see the fact that energy prices are rising. Inflation in this country is really not that bad unless you look at energy, and in energy there has been an increase. I said earlier today that home heating costs, when we did the refund, or the rebate, in November we noticed that home heating costs had gone up about 30 per cent for those who heat with home heating fuel. We noticed that costs for those who heated with electricity had actually gone down 3 per cent, so we increased the rebate program, we increased the Home Heating Rebate program. It used to be $100 when we first got into office; now it is $300 for those who heat with home fuel, it is $400 for people in Coastal Labrador, and with those with electricity it is $200. That compares very favourably to another province such as New Brunswick, which pays $100 to people with incomes less than $29,000. Our Home Heating Rebate goes up to people with net family incomes of $35,000, and on a sliding scale to those with incomes of $40,000.

We have undertaken that in November, in the fall, we are going to closely monitor the price of oil and monitor the price of gas and that will guide us in our deliberations in November when we look once again at the home heating program.

Our efforts, of this government, is constantly to put money back into the hands of people, as much as we can given our fiscal situation, and as our fiscal situation improves then we will be in a position to have more and more initiatives to put money back in people's pockets to help them cope with the rising cost of living.

This particular act, eliminating the 15 per cent on insurance, lowering personal income taxes, lowering motor vehicle registration costs, raising the Seniors' Benefit, all of these help people deal with the rising cost of living. We have done so in the past, we have done so this year, and hopefully we will be able to continue to do so in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I move the adjournment debate for today, I would like to remind members of committee work that will go on this evening and tomorrow.

The Government Services Committee will meet this afternoon at 5:30 – well, as soon as the House rises for the day - here in the Legislature, to consider the Estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

The Social Services Committee will meet, again as soon as the House rises, in the Executive Dining Room, to consider the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

Tomorrow, the Estimates schedule is as follows: The Government Services Committee will meet here in the Legislature at 9:00 o'clock to consider the Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs. The Government Services Committee will meet after we rise tomorrow afternoon, in the House of Assembly, to consider Human Resources, Labour and Employment and also Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Also, tomorrow evening after we rise, the Resource Committee will consider Natural Resources Estimates in the Executive Boardroom.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Tuesday.

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