The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today: the hon. the Member for the District of Bay Verte-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape La Hune; and the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great delight that I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Baie Verte on a very successful Come Home Year, and its fiftieth anniversary celebrations this past summer.

For a whole week, various events were planned which rejuvenated the spirit of the town immensely. Scores of people attended, not only from the region, but from all over the Province and the nation.

The event gave an opportunity to renew friendships, take trips down memory lane, and for family members who live far away, to spend some special moments together.

Community leaders and its organizing committee are to be commended for a stellar job. The amount of time, energy, and effort put into planning such a special occasion was greatly appreciated by everybody.

This is yet another, among many prime examples, of community leaders and volunteers pulling together, using limited resources, but with pride and passion, get the job done.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my hon. colleagues to join me in acknowledging the efforts and hard work, not only of the industrious Come Home Year organizing committee, but also of the people of Baie Verte for an outstanding show of community pride and community spirit.

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, Desiree Bowering, the daughter of Richard and Paula Bowering of Bay Roberts, was awarded top prize for her poster in the Lions Club International Peace Poster contest.

Desiree, a Grade 8 student at Amalgamated Academy, was honoured at the Bay Roberts Lions Club on November 10, 2008. Eight other merit awards were also presented.

The international theme for this year was Peace Begins With Me. Desiree's poster symbolized all nations as being equal, coming together all around the world forming world peace. Her poster will now be entered in the regional contest and from there, hopefully to the multiple and international competition.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Bay Roberts Lions Club and wishing Desiree Bowering every success as her poster enters the next level of competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the efforts and success of students at Lester Pearson Memorial High. The New-Wes-Valley school recently claimed first place in NTV/OZ FM's 25 Second Ad Challenge . Brandon Burry, Sarah Norris, Tyler Stagg, Jade Stokes and Jordan Stokes developed and produced an anti-drinking and driving commercial that won the provincial competition.

The winning commercial received professional editing services and is now being aired on NTV. The school also received a new computer and the total value of the prize was approximately $45,000.

The students should not only be acknowledged for their creativity and work ethic in the development of this project, but also for the maturity and sensitivity they displayed in dealing with such intense subject matter. The commercial was direct, bold, and in a very succinct manner, revealed the extremely tragic, and avoidable, outcomes associated with driving under the influence. Through their efforts, the students of Lester Pearson have provided us with an incredibly important message, one that we should never forget.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating the students at Lester Pearson Memorial High on their recent success, and to acknowledge the important contribution they have made to the continued fight against drinking and driving.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate St. James' Regional High, Port aux Basque on hosting a successful provincial leadership conference.

This was the nineteenth annual provincial leadership conference and this year's theme was, Get a Grip on Leadership. The conference was attended by approximately 250 students from across the Province. All of these students are considered to be leaders at their respective schools.

During the conference, the students attended many information and learning sessions which they felt were very beneficial. The students acquired many new ideas from each other and from the classes and the guest speakers in attendance. The students also formed new friendships and are looking forward to next year's conference.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to the students of St. James' Regional High on hosting a successful provincial leadership conference. It was a job well done and you should all be very proud of your accomplishment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege to rise in this hon. House today to recognize the heroic efforts of our youth in Belleoram.

This summer, while enjoying a beautiful summer's day in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a group of young ones decided to go swimming, but encountered some very bad luck. Young Megan Dominix nearly drowned, but thanks to the bravery of her friends she is alive and well today.

Coming to her aid were Austin Keeping and Kristen Leights, who got her safely to shore, where Daniel Barnes, Jodie Keeping and Cecil Dominix joined the life-saving effort. I would also to acknowledge Beth Skinner, our local nurse, who was quickly on hand to help out.

It is people like these that we never hear of, but who make a difference in our everyday lives. You have saved a life, and for that we are very grateful and extremely proud.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in delivering accolades and praise to these brave young heroes of Belleoram.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of an outstanding young community leader from my district.

A resident of Forteau, Labrador, Jeffrey Belben is a sixteen-year-old youth who has the ability to combine academics with sports, business, the Junior Canadian Rangers, and community involvement in youth matters on both a local, national and international level.

Mr. Speaker, in July Jeffrey was one of only twenty youth from Canada and one of 150 from all over the world to attend the first International Youth Advisory Congress on Online Safety and Security in London, England.

Participants formulated proposals that were taken forward for submission to the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child. He was also the only high school student from our Province to attend the sixth Annual National Aboriginal Youth Violence and Changing Times conference in British Columbia this past year.

Mr. Speaker, Jeffrey has participated in hockey schools for four summers, and has been honoured as most spirited, won medals in tournaments, and placed first in photography and arts contests. He has also worked with the Youth Venture small business program, mowing lawns, working as a sales assistant to the Labrador Straits Arena, and as a cook in a local restaurant. In his spare time, he became certified as a swimming instructor, lifeguard and a Red Cross Water Safety instructor.

Mr. Speaker, Jeffrey did all of this while achieving honours in junior and senior high grades and actively participating in all aspects of the Junior Canadian Ranger program.

I ask all members in this House to join with me in recognizing the extraordinary abilities and commitments of all our youth in Newfoundland and Labrador, but in particular Mr. Jeffrey Belben on his diverse accomplishments at such a young age.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform my colleagues of an important change regarding the hiring of apprentices in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board have reviewed a change to the 1:1 ratio for journeyperson to apprentice. Through this ratio, each apprentice is assigned a journeyperson mentor on the worksite to ensure that apprentices learn their skills with appropriate supervision and in a safe environment. Supervised on-the-job training and work experience are a critical component of an apprentice's training.

I am pleased to report today, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government has accepted the proposed change as recommended by the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board. This will give employers greater flexibility and will result in an increase in the number of apprentices able to gain valuable worksite training.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding, for every 1:1 ratio an employer currently has, an additional final year apprentice can now be hired. In addition, if the employer's current MOU is already with a final year apprentice, the employer can hire a first, second, or third year apprentice.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has been working diligently to build a highly-qualified labour force to meet the needs of the many large-scale development projects on the Province's horizon. The change to the journeyperson to apprentice ratio stems from the recommendations of the Skills Task Force, a partnership initiated by this government, of industry, labour, business, education and other stakeholders, to identify needs and ensure a responsive training system.

Since 2006, Mr. Speaker, significant advances have been made. Changes to the apprenticeship system last year allow apprentices to receive credit for on-the-job training they do in Alberta. The provincial government has invested over $53 million in the areas of apprenticeship, science and technology, programming, training and infrastructure. This includes funding to hire apprentices within government departments and agencies as well as to conduct significant renovations and equipment upgrades at the College of the North Atlantic. This helps ensure students have the most modern and relevant learning resources. As a result, Mr. Speaker, more people in the Province are actively involved in skilled trades.

At the end of last month, there were 4,704 active, registered apprentices, a 15 per cent increase since 2007. I am especially pleased to note that, since 2004, the number of women registering for apprenticeship programs in non-traditional trades is up by 35 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: I would like to acknowledge the role of the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board in this latest improvement to the apprenticeship system. I look forward to continuing to work with our partners to build a strong, skilled labour force for our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I want to thank the minister, Mr. Speaker, for an advance copy of her statement and to say that we on this side of the House, in the Official Opposition, want to commend the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board and government for coming together on this initiative.

We know all too well, Mr. Speaker, with what we hear in the media with regard to the major projects that will be coming on stream, we do need a skilled work force. In the past, let me assure you, being involved in the non-traditional trades before being elected to the House of Assembly, I know full well that many of our young people, when they came out of the schools, did not get the proper training on the job. Now, knowing that there is going to be a one-on-one ratio with the apprentices, this is a good news story, Mr. Speaker, and to know that we have over 4,700 registered apprentices today in our Province is good news, and hopefully all of those people will find jobs right here in our Province.

I know I attended a job fair at Ascension Collegiate back some time ago and I do know for a fact there are more females, more women, becoming involved in the non-traditional trades.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we agree that this is a good news story and we want to commend the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board for taking this initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very pleased to stand today and to recognize the positive nature of the statement that the minister has presented. As she knows, and maybe a lot of people know, this is something very close to my heart, having worked on this issue for a number of years before coming to this august assembly.

I am very pleased with the change that is shown here, that a workplace can now move beyond the one-to-one ratio and include a second ratio when the first apprentice is in the final year. We now can bring in another apprentice. This is absolutely essential, and the minister is responding to a cry that is out there in those, in the skilled trades area saying that the one-to-one was restricted. This will help increase the numbers.

I am wondering if the minister is building an agenda equity dimension to this. If a workplace has two positions, will they be asked to try to have agenda mixed in those two? I put that out to the minister.

The other thing that strikes me is that small businesses may find it difficult to add numbers of apprentices. Is there any plan in place for giving some assistance to small businesses so that they too would be able to benefit from being able to have more than one apprentice in the one-to-one ratio?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to report on a very positive project for the fishing industry in this Province. I am pleased to tell hon. members, and certainly the general public, that my department has provided both financial and in-kind support to a green crab mitigation pilot project. This included $12,000 in funding from the Division of Sustainable Fisheries and Ocean Policy. As well, staff from my department worked directly with students in both field laboratory and classroom exercises to support this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of green crab is certainly one my department takes very seriously. We are very pleased to be able to support this pilot project of the FFAW and work with the students of Swift Current Academy to carry it out.

The FFAW has led the pilot project in North Harbour, Placentia Bay. As part of the project a directed fishery was implemented with a goal of capturing adult species. As well, a green crab education program was implemented to target juvenile species in inter-tidal regions. Junior high school students from Swift Current participated in a two-day event in which they learned how to collect samples and analyze biological data in order to further the study of green crab in the area. The purpose of the study was to gather information to assist both the federal and provincial governments, and the industry, to prevent the spread of green crab to other areas.

I understand the students, Mr. Speaker, were highly motivated and engaged in the project. Our department officials were impressed by their understanding of biology and their ability to apply biological concepts when analyzing data. For that, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the teachers and the students for the excellent work they have done on this very important project.

This study will provide additional information on the extent and size of the green crab population in this part of Placentia Bay. Some additional work on the impacts of the crab on the habitat is being considered as a follow-up study.

There will be a results presentation on the green crab mitigation project in Swift Current tonight. I am pleased to say that I will be attending that event on behalf of the provincial government and I will be accompanied by the Member of the House of Assembly for the Bellevue district. It will take place this evening at Swift Current Academy gymnasium at 7:00 p.m. Along with a representative from the FFAW, I will also make a funding presentation to the school to help with science and technology initiatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, want to congratulate all of those who were involved with the green crab search and destroy mission that was launched in Placentia Bay.

Mr. Speaker, we specifically want to acknowledge the contribution of government, but also that of the FFAW and of the students at Swift Current Academy in North Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, green crab is a serious issue for the fishing industry in this Province. It is one of only four invasive species that threatens our fishery in the Placentia Bay and Fortune Bay areas. Over the last year or so, I guess the union in particular, spearheaded a number of events to try and counteract this. We know that this species has no known predator in our waters and therefore it requires a great deal of human effort on our part to try and eradicate our waters from this particular species.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the research team and the local fishermen that were engaged there, in a matter of something like five weeks had harvested over 500 pounds of crab, I think per day, in something like twenty-nine or thirty crab pots. Anybody who is engaged in the fishing industry and understands it, that is a tremendous amount of crab of any species to be taken out over that period of time. So it tells us that it is a serious problem. We need to learn from what has happened in Western Canada and the way that this species have invaded the waters off Vancouver Island and the impact that it has had there.

I say to the minister, that while this is a good project, more needs to be done. We need to start planning more and investing more and make sure that we are monitoring all the species that are out there in an invasive manner within the industry to ensure that we are just not focusing on one while two or three others are multiplying and causing more damage.

We certainly wish you success with this project as it continues and hope that we can see more of it in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.

I do congratulate the FFAW and all those who were involved in the pilot project that the minister is speaking about. All my notes here that I have written echo everything that my colleague just said, so I will not repeat them. The figure I have is that by the end of September, in one month, the FFAW retrieved 300,000 crab from the bottom of Placentia Bay. I see one of your colleagues nodding from that area, who knows that that is a fact.

So we know that we have a major problem. I think government has to be involved in a long-term, full-scale plan to deal with this. While this project that you have described is a very positive one, I think we need a plan that is much bigger in scope and of an industrial nature to really eradicate what is happening with these green crab.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in questioning the Premier yesterday with the economy, he certainly expressed some sentiments that government might spend so much money over the next year that the economy may overheat in Newfoundland and Labrador. All the while he was making his response, Wabush Mines was letting their employees know that there was going to be 160 people out of work, in addition to the contracts that would be cancelled. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a devastating hit for this community.

I ask the minister today: What is the plan, on behalf of her ministry and the department, to be able to mitigate what the impact is going to be on this town and the people that are involved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very serious situation for the workers at Wabush Mines, and for the Town of Wabush and Labrador City as well, Mr. Speaker.

I have set up a meeting, late next week or early the next week, with Wabush Mines to talk with the management about their plans. I am encouraged at this point in time, that they are looking at early retirement and trying to find other measures to lessen the impact on the workers at this time, Mr. Speaker.

What is happening in Wabush is a result of a worldwide economic crisis, and the response to that is broader than Wabush also, Mr. Speaker. So that is why we are looking with great interest to Ottawa, once they resolve their current situation, to see what kind of a stimulus package that they will come forward with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I think the message might actually be getting through to this minister that this economic worldwide crisis is going to impact us in Newfoundland and Labrador as well. When I asked her about the economy in the last few days, it was business as usual and steady as she goes, was her responses, Mr. Speaker, in Hansard.

Anyway, I say to the minister, Wabush Mines made it known at least a week ago that there could be some downsizing in their operation. Have you had an opportunity to talk to the company over the period of the last week or so, and have you made any overtures on behalf of government in terms of the role that you might be able to play in mitigating the loss of employment there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

When I talked last week, Mr. Speaker, I was answering questions with regard to IOC and what they had told me, and what they had said was that they were continuing their operations, it was steady as she goes and business as usual; they were delaying their expansion plans, but they were doing everything possible to maintain their permanent workforce, and that was good news.

We also heard from Wabush Mines last week that, because of the 50 per cent reduction in production in the steel market worldwide, it was going to have an impact on their operations in Wabush.

We are in daily contact, Mr. Speaker, with these companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, if the minister is so engaged, she will know that the reason IOC has not been laying off employees is because they are going to maintain a maintenance program over a longer period of time.

Wabush Mines was also scheduled to invest $100 million in the upgrades in their mining operation. Maybe she can tell me why they have postponed that maintenance program instead of doing it now at a time when the economy could use the investment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is quite simple and understood by everybody, I think, in this Province and in the country. It is because of the loss of markets.

Wabush is involved, at this point in time, in a pilot project with regard to their manganese reduction, which will have a significant impact on the life of that mine, Mr. Speaker. That is a piece of work that is critical in the long term, and I am happy to report to the House here today that they are going to continue with that piece of investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we also heard from Harvest Energy that they were going to put their expansion programs on hold for the Come By Chance oil refinery project. Mr. Speaker, in a quote that I heard from the CEO there, he said refineries must expand or eventually close.

I ask the minister: Can you give us an update as to what is going on with the Come By Chance expansion project and what it will mean to the long-term future of that operation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to report that yesterday morning I had a meeting with John Zahary and his officials from Harvest Energy and we had a long conversation about the future of the refinery in Come By Chance, which is very bright.

They are currently looking for a partner for their $2 billion expansion. In the meantime they see that their operations can continue as they are now, and they are confident that they will find the investment they require - not at the present time; it is a bit of a struggle. They understand that investment is very tight at the moment, but they have delayed their plans, they have not shelved their plans, and they are very confident in the operations that are happening in Come by Chance at the moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that the minister said – actually, a couple of times in a row - that she is monitoring what is happening in the Province. I am not sure that just monitoring it and waiting in your office for the phone to ring to tell you the next amount of layoffs in the next mine or the next oil refinery is the approach to that.

Minister, I ask you: Are you prepared to take further action and to lead discussions with the industrial sector in Newfoundland and Labrador with the business community to look at what is going to be required as economic stimulus investment in order to keep our economy rolling?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged with our industrial partners in this Province on a daily basis. Nowhere, at no time, do I sit in my office waiting to react to bad news. We are fully engaged. We are fully aware. We are supportive. We look for advice. We look to have our policies and programs informed by the people involved in the different industries in this Province, and we have an excellent relationship with people who are involved in industrial development here in this Province. Much like the Grand Falls issue, Mr. Speaker, when the Opposition become engaged we usually have a year or a year-and-a-half work under our belt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

The minister's heavy-handed interference in the appointment of a new president has caused some serious disruption in the planning process of Memorial University. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government is bringing forward a motion today to try and express their regret for what happened, and her interference.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Given the fact that the search committee at the university was disbanded because of the interference by yourself and the Premier in the Province, can you tell me when that search committee will now be put back in place and when we can look forward to seeing a new president instated?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, we just recently appointed a new Chair to the Board of Regents at Memorial University. I had the opportunity to speak with the new Chair very briefly a couple of times in the last week. I certainly look forward to having a meeting with him in the very near future and we hope to get the presidential search started as soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that the Board of Regents has also appointed an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to the Memorial University Act, which will strengthen the autonomy of the university and in turn eliminate the interference of government in that process.

I ask the minister: Will you be listening to the recommendations that will come forward from this committee, and are you prepared to look at legislative changes if that is what they require?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the report from the ad hoc committee that will come to government through the Board of Regents. We will certainly take it very seriously. We will look at it. As a government, we will do the analysis and we will make decisions and act what we feel is in the best interest of the university and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, earlier today we received a report on adverse health events in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we have only had a very short briefing of this report. It is a comprehensive piece of work, but it appears that many of the recommendations we feel are there to certainly improve the system, and unfortunately it seems like a lot of these improvements are resting on the hands of the regional health authorities and not on that of the ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today if he would be prepared to bring forward changes to ensure that once the Minister of Health is advised of adverse health events within the Province, that the legislation will require that it be reported to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the member opposite has acknowledged the fine piece of work that that taskforce has done. It is an excellent piece of work I say, Mr. Speaker. It is a very comprehensive piece of work. It covers a wide range of issues from policy to legislation. It talks about the role of the health authorities. It talks about a whole new reporting process; it talks about some significant investments that need to be made to make some improvements; it talks about a process and structure, I say, Mr. Speaker. So it is very comprehensive.

Now, what I had indicated this morning, and the member opposite would have had some representation at that meeting that I had. I had indicated then that government only received the report in detail yesterday. We need some time to evaluate the recommendations that are in that report. I acknowledged this morning with a media briefing that there were some things there of a policy nature that we can move on immediately, and we intend to do that. Some of the other things require much more reflection and to help inform our decision –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: By leave, I will just clue up. Thank you.

To help us inform that decision, we await the Cameron Inquiry's report as well, to help inform some components of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is felt that if there was a requirement in law, making it mandatory for the Ministry of Health to report these issues, we may not have ever required the services of the Cameron Inquiry.

I ask the minister, in light of this: Will you please have another look, when you are reviewing the recommendations, and ensure that there is statutory law requiring the ministry to make the reports public and to do what should have been done in the incidents around ER-PR testing in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in the same way this morning, in talking about the report, I acknowledged the great work that Mr. Thompson and his task force had done, and thanked them for their work and indicated that we would be reviewing the report and giving it full consideration.

In that same vein, I thanked the member opposite for her recommendation today and we, too, will take that into consideration as we ponder what we will do. I can rest assured of one thing, Mr. Speaker, that we will be swift in our response, we will be appropriate in our response, because we are committed. We are committed, as I have said in this House many times. We are committed to quality health care in this Province. I think the investments we have made over the last five years clearly reflect our intent to strengthen and build the Province's health care system. Our focus in the last twelve months, with so many initiatives we have already announced - the accreditation of labs, strengthening of management information systems – reflects our commitment to quality. So I will take your recommendation into consideration. As Cabinet colleagues, we will also consider the recommendations you have made in the past to us. So thank you very much for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

I have asked the past couple of days about the release of a certain report, the one that was done on correctional facilities. I must go back again to another question that I raised, to which an answer was not given by the minister, and that concerns the death of a thirty-one-year-old gentleman at HMP in March.

I understand, again, from the family, the father of the person in question, that he has met recently, on November 28, with the minister, and from March to now, nine months, he has been trying to get an autopsy report, a report from HMP as to what happened to his son, or from the medical examiner and he has gotten absolutely nothing.

Is there anything, Minister, that you can do to expedite the release of these documents and this information so that this family will have some idea as to what happened to their son?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I did meet with the father of the individual who, unfortunately, lost his life when incarcerated. Since that time, I have discussed this matter with various officials. I am awaiting the final report of the Chief Medical Officer. I am asking my officials to explore the options that are available to me, as minister, and when we have those options, we will make an appropriate decision and will contact the father and tell him.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in question has indicated that the report of the Medical Examiner has been draft form for some time now, and he has requested it. Surely, there must be something more that you can do other than say we will give it to you sometime in the future.

Can't you exert some authority, some pressure, some influence, on the Medical Examiner so this family can bring some closure to this issue, or else decide what needs to be done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am advised that there is a draft report in at the department but obviously we have to wait for the final report, because the final report might be different from the draft.

I do undertake that as soon as I have that report – and I will be very happy to call the Chief Medical Examiner and ask if he could expedite the matter. When I have the report I will be happy to give it to the father, and I will be pleased to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, we also had a report from the Office of the Citizens' Representative in June, 2007, done about the women's correctional facility at Clarenville, which outlines a number of major, major issues and why that place is in such a terrible state. In fact, I understand it has been under lockdown now for the past three or four weeks, as indicated by the minister to the media last week. Some of the reports indicate that a counselling team, Mr. Speaker, has not even been in the facility since 2006.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of the existence of this Citizens' Representative Report of 2007, and has anything been done to act upon that report, or is it merely sitting on the shelf somewhere? Can you tell us that, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There was a report from the Citizens' Representative - I think it was, as the hon. member said, in June of 2007 - in which he made five recommendations. One was for the Department of Health and four were for the Department of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there was a report by the Citizens' Representative in June 2007 and there were five recommendations made to government. One was for the Department of Health and the others were for the Department of Justice.

I can tell the hon. member that one of the recommendations was to institute video conferencing equipment at Clarenville, and that has been done. I can also tell the hon. member that on each Friday there is either a mental health or an addictions counsellor provided by Eastern Health. As well, there is a facilities classification officer who is a social worker and provides ongoing consultation to inmates. There was a recommendation that a package, containing information about community supports, be made available to the inmates of that institution, and that is being done. There was also -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

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

There was a recommendation that a pretrial detention centre be erected in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the benefit of Aboriginal women who are inmates, and (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not – again, this is another report, yet another report that was done on the correction facilities submitted to the former minister in September of this year – if, in fact, the report of September included recommendations as well as to what should be done at Clarenville in addition to what the Citizens' Representative pointed out in June 2007?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is a first for this House but I could not hear the question from the hon. member. I ask him to repeat it, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

My question deals with the issue of: there was a Citizens' Representative report in June 2007 which the minister just responded to. We also know of the existence of a corrections facility report that was submitted to the Department of Justice at the end of September this year. That report is yet to be released. Can the minister tell us at least whether the situation at Clarenville, which we was addressed by the Citizens' Representative in 2007, was that also commented upon and does that form part of this yet to be released report that was submitted to the Department of Justice in September of this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think the report was submitted on October 1 of this year, just to be correct. The report, as I indicated, is very comprehensive, very all-encompassing. I think you may recall that when my predecessor, the Minister of Finance, who was Minister of Justice when he released the report, the terms of reference were publicized at that time and they were very broad; looking at terms of reference to look at the management, look at the organizational structure, look at every institution, including Clarenville, including Whitbourne – no, not Whitbourne, I am sorry, the seven correctional institutions - to look at labour relations, to look at health, to look at mental health as well. As I said, there were seventy-seven recommendations, a very broad report, and we look forward to its very imminent release.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are already aware that we have had undertakings from the government. The former minister committed a release before the House opened, and that is not done. It is probably going to wilt again on the shelves in the department.

I ask the minister - I read and heard a copy of an interview that you gave to the media last week dealing with the situation at Clarenville, and in particular the lockdown that is occurring there. At that time you made a statement, Minister, that some of the problems at Clarenville might be resolved if the inmates there were moved to a federal institution.

I am wondering if you might clarify this situation, because my understanding is that this Province has an exchange service agreement with the federal government whereby we in fact want to, in most cases, have federal prisoners here, and in fact the federal government pays a per diem to have them. So I am a bit confused about your comment that if they leave Clarenville to be put in federal institutions that will resolve it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yet we have a deal to keep them here.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we do have, as the hon. member indicated, and I am sure a lot of the citizens of this Province would be interested to know, we have an agreement with the federal government that people sentenced to federal time can stay in our provincial institutions. As a result of that we have asked, on numerous occasions, for the federal government to share with us the joint cost of a new penitentiary for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; but, of course, certain inmates who are sentenced to federal time would, for certain advantages that they perceive may be available in federal institutions –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) transferred (inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, they will want to be transferred. They will want to go to federal institutions. So I am not talking about forcing people to leave. I am talking about those who have applied to go to a federal institution and were simply awaiting the time when they would be transferred.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government recently rejected the idea of constructing a causeway to Long Island. It is a very short distance, Mr. Speaker, across the tickle to Pilley's Island, and residents feel this project would be of great benefit to the region.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Is government willing to listen to the people of Long Island and reconsider the decision of cancelling the causeway?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the interest of giving the House as much time as possible, Mr. Speaker, I will make a very short answer: No.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer.

My next question is: Since the causeway project was cancelled and it is not going to be reconsidered, the people of Long Island have continually been ignored and dismissed by this government. That is their feeling, Mr. Speaker. Most recently, the dedicated ferry service to the island has been diminished and the number of ferry trips has been reduced.

I ask the minister: Why has government diminished the Long Island ferry service when there is a need for it to be improved rather than weakened?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous government had spent a bit of money on our ferry fleet instead of buying, as our former colleague in the House used to say, a rust bucket from Russia, if they had spent some decent money on ferries and had a good, sensible vessel maintenance and replacement program, maybe we would not be in the predicament that we are with ferries in the Province right now.

The fact of the matter is that we have an old, decrepit fleet of ferries. We all know that. We went through an exhaustive planning process for a vessel replacement strategy. We are in the process of implementing that replacement strategy. We are in the process of beginning the construction on two new ferries.

Mr. Speaker, as part of that plan, as part of the development of that strategy, we had a very hard look at the ferry services in the Province, the number of people that use them, the times of the day that they use those ferries and, Mr. Speaker, that was the basis for the reorganization of the ferry system and schedule on Long Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, regardless, whether it was a rust bucket from Russia or wherever, it is little consultation to the people in those communities. They feel frustrated, knowing the growing concerns with medical emergencies and access to services being negatively impacted.

I ask the minister: In the absence of a causeway, is government willing to return to the dedicated ferry service to the people of Long Island?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite would know, and I am sure the people on Long Island know, most people in the Province know, because of the age of our ferry fleet we have, from time to time, vessels breaking down. We do not have, on many occasions, another vessel that we can move into service. I do not think anybody sees ferries down tied onto the waterfront here on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker. If they are, it is because they are in there going on dock for repairs. They are old. We have to try and manage a fleet in a way that we can get it through the longest possible time period while we are in the process of replacing the fleet.

Mr. Speaker, we have outlined what we are going to do in the Long Island area, and that is based on a very exhaustive evaluation of the conditions there. I do not believe there will be any changes in the foreseeable future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Government Services did not answer my question regarding specific cancers that had been proven to be related to firefighting. Instead, the minister gave a general answer on the professionalism of the Occupational Health and Safety officers.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of specific cancers that have been proven to be related to firefighting and are recognized in other jurisdictions.

So I ask the minister today: When is this Province going to introduce presumptive cancer legislation as is being requested by the firefighters' associations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we are not actually replacing anything. As a matter of fact, what we are doing is – or getting rid of anything, we are actually replacing it.

What we are doing is proposing to get rid of section 24 and replace it with section 23 of the WHSC regulations, and then section 23 will be referenced in our regulations in OHS.

Section 23 is a more authoritative list and it certainly gets updated automatically. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands two of the lists: Occupational Health and Safety section 24 of the regulations list, which is one page, thirteen diseases, and the workers health and safety commission section 23 regulations, which is five pages, thirty diseases, which is updated automatically at any given time in regards to the experts in the field.

I am not an expert in regard to diseases, so we depend on the advisory council in workers' compensation and they –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. O'BRIEN: - certainly bring those things forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister might not be an expert in diseases but he is an expert in not answering questions, because he still has not answered it. So, I will move on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: My question now is for the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I, and I am sure other MHAs are receiving many calls from constituents asking when government is going to release the home heating rebate for this year. Mr. Speaker, last year we heard stories of seniors going to malls to stay warm. In a have province, this is not acceptable. In spite of the fact that we are having a warm spell and it has not gotten too cold yet in this part of the Province, this is still an issue. We cannot have people choosing between food, rent and heat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: When is the government going to announce the home heating rebate for this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By way of preamble, the last three years of the Liberal reign, 2000-2001, there was a $100 rebate, nothing in 2001-2002, nothing in 2002-2003. Last year, we announced a program on December 15 – excuse me, in 2006-2007, we announced on December 15; 2007-2008, we announced it on December 6. Last year the rebate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: - was $300 for households using oil; $200 rebate for electricity, wood or other heating service; $400 for Coastal Labrador; 76,400 families benefited last year, a $17.5 million program. I am pleased to tell -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. KENNEDY: The announcement will come shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to stand again today and present a petition on behalf of the residents of Conception Bay North with regards to a long-term care facility.

I know it has been said that everyday I get up with petitions and I have been also told that there is nothing I can do from this side, but one thing I can do, and every member in this hon. House can do, is stand and bring the concerns of his constituents and his neighbouring constituents to the floor of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I know this government recognizes the need for a long-term care facility in the Conception Bay North area. We know that to be a fact. It was done through an external consultant's report in 2007. This government was in power then. It has been said to me across the House: How come you guys did not do it back in 2001?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard announced this year $1 million to see about two new long-term care facilities here in the St. John's area. God love the crowd in St. John's, the people of St. John's, they need long-term care facilities as well. I am just calling upon government to reconsider, and this year when the budget process takes place, to see that there is funds made available and nothing any better than hear the minister when he presents his budget in 2009 to say that there is money allotted this year for a new long-term care facility for Conception Bay North.

We know it is not going to be built overnight. We know it is not going to be built next year or even the following year, but at least put the money forward and see that the work that has been done in the past, concerns that have been expressed by the citizens of the area, as well as the professionals, will become a reality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it being Private Members' Day, we call from the Order Paper the motion that was put forth by the Member for Grand Bank regarding Memorial University, Motion 9.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to stand in the House today and have a few words about the Private Member's Motion; not to recap the entire motion because I am going to speak to many parts of it, but simply to say that the motion is asking for the entire support of the House today for academic freedom and academic autonomy for Memorial University.

I would like to start, Mr. Speaker, by having a few words about the university itself. No doubt for all of us the university is certainly considered to be a prized possession of our Province. It is a core and integral part of many aspects of what happens in the Province, and, Mr. Speaker, it is the largest institution of its kind in the Atlantic Provinces.

By way of reminder, in addition to the St. John's Campus we have the Grenfell Campus, the Marine Institute, Harlow Campus in England, and many other extension offices throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. We boast some 18,000 students with a budget of approximately $400 million.

To support some of my statements I will just reference, Mr. Speaker: recently Canada's Top 50 Research Universities List for 2008 highlighted that Memorial's research income grew by more than 116 per cent between the years of 2002 and 2007. As well, Mr. Speaker, the same list indicates that Memorial is ranked number one in universities offering medical and doctoral programs.

Mr. Speaker, our students, as all of us know in this House, I am sure, are local, national and international. From the local perspective we have lots of rural students and lots of urban students. Mr. Speaker, I can say very confidently and very proudly that our students are certainly winning many awards and getting many recognitions on the national and international front.

To remind the House of a statement made earlier by a member: Students in Free Enterprise, SIFE, which was formally known as ACE Memorial, Mr. Speaker; this group competed with the best and brightest students in the world from more than forty countries. In order to get the opportunity to do that they had to win not only a regional championship but they had to win a national championship. Mr. Speaker, upon going through that process they went on to represent our Province and our country and they won the world championship, the gold medal, in that competition. I say, Mr. Speaker, that speaks very well for the students of Memorial and what they are achieving.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to you as well, that is not the only event of that nature where our students are achieving very well.

Our graduates, as well, Mr. Speaker, are certainly very high achievers, our graduates of Memorial and the various campuses that we have. Not only are they achieving highly but they are contributing significantly not only to our Province but to the country and to the world as a whole.

I speak, Mr. Speaker, of many groups of people: our nurses, our doctors, our teachers, our lawyers, our engineers, our fishery and marine employees, our economists, our scientists, our public employees. All of these, Mr. Speaker, are very valued to us in the Province and they contribute significantly to not only what has happened in the past but what continues to happen as our Province continues to grow.

I say to members of the House, we need only look at our current business leaders, public figures, community leaders and political leaders at all levels in the Province. We look at the leadership qualities, the knowledge and the skill sets that these individuals have and that they are using to help shape the Province; but, Mr. Speaker, these individuals have acquired the leadership experiences and their knowledge and their skills through their experiences at Memorial University.

I also, Mr. Speaker, would like to reference some of the work of the faculty at Memorial. Certainly there has been tremendous, tremendous leadership by the faculty and staff at Memorial, and I want to say that we on the government side of the House certainly value what they do and value the contribution they are making to the overall success of Memorial. Their ingenuity, their creativity, they are risk takers, Mr. Speaker, and they are independent and freethinking, and all of this is what is adding to our student success at Memorial and all of it is something that we continue to pledge our support for as a government.

Mr. Speaker, also, we recognize the importance of faculty members in their teaching, and how they are imparting skills to students, how they conduct their research, how they are moving in the pursuit of knowledge. They are engaging in fundamental criticism, Mr. Speaker. We also recognize that all of these things are best determined within the university community itself.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reference, as an example of some of the many fine things happening at Memorial, just recently Dr. Jane Green with the Faculty of Medicine received a knowledge in transition award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Mr. Speaker, the nomination for Dr. Green was based on her commitment to helping patients, her commitment and unwavering quest for knowledge, and her love of information and explaining genetics. In summary, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Green is a consummate educator and an excellent researcher.

Further, Mr. Speaker, to highlight some of the great things happening at Memorial, I reference a partnership between Memorial's Distance Education and Learning Technologies - referred to as DELT - and the School of Music. This group, Mr. Speaker, this partnership, is recognized with a national award for innovation in learning technology. In short, Mr. Speaker, they have demonstrated a unique set of learning technologies to change learning systems. This, Mr. Speaker, is very important to Memorial, and it is very important to us as a government to continue and offer our continued support for what is happening there.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, to Memorial's contribution to the Province, I think probably one of the biggest things that we continue to see is Memorial's continuous focus on public policy and public debate. If we think about the Dr. Leslie Harris Centre, for example, we continue to see lively debates of public policy and public initiatives, and I think, without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, all governments and all public figures of the day are influenced to a degree by the kinds of debates and dialogues that we see coming out of Memorial.

More than that, Memorial has established a national and an international reputation as a stellar university and we are very fortunate on the local stage to have it to support our Province and our continued growth.

Mr. Speaker, I would highlight once again a conference just recently in September hosted by Memorial, an international conference called Knowledge in Motion, which was the first of its kind in the world, Mr. Speaker – the first of its kind in the world.

Also, just to follow through on some of Memorial's engagements, Mr. Speaker, Memorial is engaged and Memorial students and faculty are engaged in many kinds of outreach activities, many partnerships with health boards and school boards and zonal boards throughout the entire Province. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that some of the speakers coming after me are going to reference some of the impact that graduates and students of Memorial have had on the Province.

Let me say in my own district, Mr. Speaker, we have the Grand Bank Summer Festival which has been growing in leaps and bounds over the last ten or twelve years. It is a real economic generator for my district and our part of the Burin Peninsula, our part of the Province. Mr. Speaker, the entire Grand Bank Theatre Festival is comprised of current students and former graduates of Grenfell College in Corner Brook – again, to demonstrate the kinds of successes we are seeing coming out of Memorial.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question is, obviously: Why is this motion brought forward, having given a preamble about the importance of Memorial, and how we see it on the provincial stage and the national and international stage?

In short, there has been much discussion and much debate about Memorial, not only in the last couple of weeks but the last several months. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, through this debate today that we will contribute further to that discussion but also, Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated clearly government's support for the academic autonomy of Memorial University. What I am hoping to do today is to see members opposite, from the Opposition parties, pledge their support for Memorial's academic autonomy as well.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Memorial is an independent university. We recognize the importance of the freedom of expression. We recognize the importance of the promotion of diverse ideas and beliefs, Mr. Speaker, and we also recognize the teaching of ideas and concepts that challenge the status quo and do not conform to particular ideologies. We recognize all of those, as a government, Mr. Speaker, and we recognize that institutional autonomy is necessary for the proper functioning of the university.

Mr. Speaker, let me also say that the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada made a statement on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Mr. Speaker, according to their statement – their statement - it is the essence of a university to freely pursue knowledge and understanding and to search for the reasons of things. It is the essence of a university to question opinions about things; and, not only is it important, it is the right and the responsibility of the academic institution to do that. It is the responsibility of the university to resist ill-advised external pressures from political and lobby groups, and it is the obligation of the faculty members in particular to work with their administration and their faculty and their staff to ensure that these pressures do not unduly influence the intellectual work of the university.

Mr. Speaker, that is a statement on academic freedom and institutional autonomy from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we as a government accept this statement and we support that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: We also accept, Mr. Speaker, that it is essential that universities have the freedom to set their research and their educational priorities. Mr. Speaker, that is a reminder to members of the House when we keep talking about our continued support for Memorial.

Well, let me remind us of a couple of things, Mr. Speaker: We have invested over $70 million to improve infrastructure, and I am reminded of an example very recently where the Minister of Education and I attended the reopening of Barnes House, Paton College. That is one example of the many, many good things happening at Memorial with our continued government support.

A $90 million investment, Mr. Speaker, on the White Paper for Public Post-Secondary Education; $30.6 million to support a tuition freeze for our post-secondary students; $10 million annually in funding for research and development; and almost $266.8 million this year – an increase of over 63 per cent in the budget in the past five years, Mr. Speaker - has been our support for Memorial University and post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that education is not a privilege in this Province; it is a right. We recognize that we need to continue to support Memorial University in all that it is doing, to ensure that it is doing the best that it can for our students, and that includes, Mr. Speaker, recognizing and respecting the principles of academic autonomy and academic freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to comments from my own colleagues and members opposite today. I look forward to comments that focus on the intent of the motion, focus on supporting our instructors and our professors and our faculty, comments that focus on supporting our students and helping and supporting their achievement levels and continuing to support their growth because we know that is so important to the future of this Province.

I look forward to hearing the Leader of the Opposition opposite when she speaks and attesting that her support is there for those kinds of things and that her support is there for my motion, because as I said, education is fundamental. We all recognize that education is fundamental to the growth, not only of the individual, but it is fundamental to the growth and the continued growth of our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure today to be able to stand and speak with regards to the private member's resolution that has been put forward by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the things he had to say I totally agree with. We, on this side, have stood by the university when all of this has happened in the media over the last several weeks and months. I have to agree with him, Memorial University stands tall with any university, not only in our country, but throughout this world of ours.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened in the last two weeks to what individuals and hon. members had to say here about what has been accomplished in the past five years, and I have to agree with them. Myself, and the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we attended a session at Memorial University - I think it was called: hot topics, at the time - when we heard and listened to what people involved in the education field, to the professors and administrators at the university had to say. The comments that I am going to say here today are not coming from me for political reasons. They are facts that came forward from individuals who had concerns when there was an interference with the process of selecting a president for the university.

One thing I want to note in the resolution to start with, and that is, I think it is the fifth whereas. Section 51 of the legislation –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair directs the Table Officer that the clock is not set properly.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the Minister of Education. At least she stood for me and said that they were going to give me a few more minutes; a minute-and-some-odd seconds.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the WHEREAS where it says section 51. I want to read it, Mr. Speaker: "An Act Respecting The Memorial University of Newfoundland, which has been in place since 1973 – defines a process whereby the Board of Regents, in consultation with the University Senate, must forward the names of candidates for President of the university to the Lieutenant-Governor in council for approval."

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the act here, and section 51 of the act states, under appointment of a president, it says: "There shall be a president of the university who shall be appointed by the board in consultation with the senate and with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

It says nothing, Mr. Speaker, about putting names forward. All due respect to the Minister of Education saying that she has to interview them, it says that the Board of Regents will select it in consultation with the senate and the name will be put forward to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Mr. Speaker, when we attended that section, the hot topic sessions at the university, there were many things that were brought forward. The comments were made that Memorial should be an example of open and thorough debate without any shadow of political interference. That is not me saying that. That came from the people at the session. They felt that politician partisan purposes, Memorial will not have much status among the universities in Canada. Those are comments that were put forward by people who attended. They went on to say that the university has a reputation of being placed where free speech can flourish. No doubt, that is taking place and they felt that that is what should happen in a democratic society. They must have a right of self-government freedom and moral independence.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through some individuals, prominent individuals here in this Province and outside, the comments they have made when they felt that the process of selecting a president for the university was interfered with. One geography professor at the university, Mr. Chris Sharpe, mentioned in the media: Those who have taken part in recent presidential searches say that approval has been just a formality. There has been never any interference.

I know that comments were made by the former president, and I know there were comments back and forth in the House and said that was not the reason why he left. I am not saying it was, but the former president of the university, Mr. Axel Meisen, who resigned his position eight months before, he made one comment that the government was interfering with the operations of the university. Now what he referred to, I do not know, but he felt that government was interfering.

The former chancellor, Mr. Speaker, the former chancellor of the university and now Lieutenant-Governor made the comments. He accused Premier Williams of putting political ambitions ahead of educational priorities. That is not me saying that, Mr. Speaker. That is the concerns that he had, who is now the Lieutenant-Governor, who was at that time the chancellor of the university.

Mr. Steve Wolnietz, a political science professor, he says without autonomy Memorial will not work. So he must have concerns to even make that comment.

Mr. Ross Klein, President of Memorial Faculty Association stated: what the minister is doing seems to be a contravention of the Memorial University Act.

MS BURKE: I have his comments here.

MR. BUTLER: The minister says she has his comments and we are looking forward to them later on, but that is one comment he made. He made that, Mr. Speaker.

Another gentleman, Mr. Paul Wilson, a member of Memorial University Senate: everyone at MUN should get involved. Everyone has a stake in the autonomy of the university. He felt that the minister is overstepping her bounds.

Howard Pawley, Chair of the Harry Crowe Foundation, a group who advocates for academic freedom, stated he felt that the message at Memorial University is: better do as we say or else. That is his comments; he felt that it was being controlled from the top down.

The Board of Regents, they would like nothing more than the Newfoundland and Labrador Government to revise the Memorial University Act so that government has no role in the presidential selection process at all. I know from the questions that the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked today, we know that is not going to happen very likely because the Premier made a comment across the floor: not likely. Not likely, he said, we are going to give them a blind cheque for $300 million. That was his comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blank.

MR. BUTLER: Blank. I am sorry, my apologies.

Mr. Speaker, another gentleman, Evan Simpson, former vice-president of academics and pro-vice Chancellor of Memorial University, he said micromanagement is a poor practice. When government appoints knowledgeable people to the Board of Regents it should expect them to governor the university.

We go on to the Canadian Association of Universities, their president and executive director stated that the former board chair erred in agreeing to have Premier Williams meet, even informally, with the candidates. They stated having government involvement puts Memorial autonomy at risk. They hope that government will unequivocally and promptly announce that it will accept the university's choice for a president, Mr. Speaker, and the list goes on and on.

We totally support Memorial University, but we honestly believe that there was interference at that particular time, Mr. Speaker.

Those are individuals who are in the know when it comes to university. As the hon. Member for Grand Bank stated very clearly the stature of the university, what it is today, hopefully it will be that way for many, many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, the Board of Regents, we know, one of the most important decisions they used to make was the appointment of a president. Many people have concerns about the long-term damage that may have taken place – hopefully not, but those are words and concerns of individuals who, from time to time, have expressed their views, Mr. Speaker.

It has been also said in the media that – and maybe the minister - I know she is the Minister of Education – maybe she is acting on advice from the Premier. Those are not my words. Those were words that were brought forward, and it was stated that there was no interference. Through the Freedom of Information there has been documentation back and forth where we know that the Premier's Office knew about this for quite some time.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the resolution that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Grand Bank, I just want to go down through his resolution.

If Memorial is to continue to enjoy its well-deserved reputation, which we believe it has, and if government recognizes and is committed to maintaining autonomy and academic freedom, and if government recognizes that education is fundamental in Newfoundland's growth and prosperity, and if government is willing to work collaboratively with the Board of Regents and the university's administration as is stated in his resolution, if government wishes to confirm its full support for the academic freedom, Mr. Speaker, and the academic autonomy of Memorial University, I wish to put forward the following amendment - an amendment put forward, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for the District of Port de Grave and seconded by the Member for Cartwright –L'Anse au Clair - that the motion be amended by adding to the end "and give consideration to measures which would result in the automatic acceptance of the recommendation brought forward by the Board of Regents for the appointment of a new president for the university."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will have a brief recess while the Table Officers consider the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The Chair rules that the amendment is in order.

MR. DALLEY: As a graduate of Memorial, it is my pleasure to stand in this House and second the motion made by my hon. colleague from Grand Bank, a motion to affirm the support for academic freedom and academic autonomy at Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is the autonomy and the freedom that supports the right to teach, to learn, to study, to publish research material. It is to affirm our support to support Memorial in developing programs to support emerging sectors, as well affirming our support to encourage the university to harness the intellectual capacities of students and faculty, to advance the opportunities, to advance the reputation and indeed advance the success of Memorial University.

As we know, Memorial is a great tribute to those who fought in the Great Wars. It deserves the utmost respect, recognition and support. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we can measure the impact of Memorial University on the social and economic fabric of our Province. Nor can we really express in words what Memorial has contributed to the culture and history of our people.

You could search every bay, every cove, and every community, and I would suggest you would find a Memorial graduate. Many of our councillors, our church leaders, our recreation committees, our volunteers, our community leaders, are made up of Memorial graduates.

We can look in our economy out there across our Province, we can look at our valued nurses and doctors, we can look at our influential teachers, our hard-working social workers, and you could go right down the list, and these people, many of them, have a background from Memorial University.

As a government, and I certainly think indicative of the investment that we made of over a billion dollars this year, we see education as a priority. We see it is as essential, fundamental to the growth and prosperity of our Province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as a government we also have a responsibility to the people to invest in Memorial. We need to make sure that it continues with a high quality of education. We need to make sure that it is in a position to avail of research and development opportunities. Government has a responsibility to work with the university to establish partnerships, both private and public.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we want to ensure that Memorial continues to be a world-class institution. We have invested in Memorial, as my hon. colleague referenced: $10 million for research annually; over $50 million in freezing tuition fees to help attract students from around the world; over $12 million in up-front grants to students to ensure that their educational opportunities are fair and equal.

We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, up to $300 million a year, on infrastructure and operations for Memorial. That demonstrates our government's commitment to Memorial University, a commitment to create an educational environment that is conducive to higher learning and scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, with investment there certainly come public expectation and accountability. In working collaboratively with administration and the Board of Regents, government has a responsibility to the people, and the people fully expect government to be engaged with the university. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars of public money, and with that we have a responsibility; a responsibility that we cannot and we will not relinquish when it comes to Memorial University. We have to ensure, in working with the university, that it is the best it can be, the best programming and the best experiences for our students.

We have to ensure that Memorial University continues to be recognized around the world as one of the best institutes to pursue post-secondary studies. We want to make sure that when a graduate of Memorial applies for employment, and the employer sees that this student has a certificate from Memorial, we want that to be recognized and we want to ensure that our graduates have equal opportunity for employment around the world.

Mr. Speaker, for the university to continue to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to be the best, as a government we fully recognize and support that academic freedom and academic autonomy are essential.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Memorial University, certainly, being a rural member from a rural community, I want to point out that when we talk about Memorial we are not just talking about St. John's campus. There have been great extensions to Memorial and great benefits to the rural areas of our Province.

For example, in Goose Bay, Port aux Basques, Twillingate, my home town, we have a full-time Memorial faculty affiliated with the discipline of family medicine. Government has partnered with Memorial to establish centres of primary health care excellence and team building. What we are seeing at these sites; we are able to promote the cooperation of allied health professionals to provide the best primary health care possible. These sites have enhanced the academic and learning experience for medical students and for family medicine residents in a rural setting. We are seeing an increase in the professional educational opportunities in the discipline of social work, pharmacy, nursing and medicine.

Mr. Speaker, the decision to expand the medical school outside of St. John's has enabled us to explore better medical practices, better medical services, and better management of our health issues. Not only that, not only in providing our young people with medical experience in rural areas, but this has offered an opportunity for exposure in our communities, it has provided some stability in our facilities, and it has inspired more and more people to consider medicine as a field to pursue in long-term career options.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps when we look at an announcement this week by our Health Minister where we have seen a net increase of forty positions from March to October, maybe some of these programs are starting to pay off, and are certainly enhancing our ability to recruit physicians to the Province, and indeed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one program and I think I would be remiss today if I did not point out an important part of Memorial University, and that is the Marine Institute. The Marine Institute comes under the umbrella of Memorial and it is an institute in this Province that is fully connected and engaged with our economy, an economy that is driven by marine and ocean industry. The Marine Institute has a strong historical connection in our Province with the education and training of people involved in the fishery, but it is also engaged in the education and training necessary in the oil and gas industry.

In reading their annual report I notice their vision, the vision to be a world oceans institute. Setting the standard in education, training, innovation and research certainly leads to academic freedom and autonomy and an ability to grow. The Marine Institute, under the capable guidance of the Executive Director, Mr. Glenn Blackwood, is a world-class facility, ever evolving with world-class programs and world-class instruction.

A few examples, Mr. Speaker, of how the Marine Institute is supporting the rural areas of our Province and supporting the economy of our Province: it has distinguished itself as the only post-secondary facility in the country to offer remotely-operated vehicle training, new ocean and science technology; the school has a new applied research unit to oversee major initiatives such as their Journal of Ocean Technology and the implementation of Smart Bay, the technology that supports safety and security at sea; and the Marine Institute is home to one of the world's largest flume tanks, which is a major research and development piece of facility. It has a ship simulator that is the envy of the industry around the world. It has even catered to American engineering companies to consider and test skyscraper designs. The Marine Institute is partnered in over 120 projects in more than fifty countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas. In addition to supporting our fishing industry, the Marine Institute has established an Offshore Safety and Survival Centre campus in Foxtrap and has also established a Safety and Emergency Response Centre in Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, the Marine Institute as a part of Memorial University has a strong national and international reputation. It is the freedom, the academic freedom, the academic autonomy, that has helped to establish the Marine Institute as a leader in ocean science and a world class oceans institute. I highlight these examples, Mr. Speaker, because I think it recognizes the contribution that Memorial University has made to this Province, has made to the rural areas, and I think, more importantly, it highlights the significance and the importance that our government continue to support the university in every way that we can.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just like to comment that I think many people of Newfoundland and Labrador have had a rich and rewarding experience with Memorial University. When we look at the university today we see a population of some 18,000 students. We see extended programming, leading edge programming, and we see creative and innovative academia. We see infrastructure and research growth. Mr. Speaker, what we see in Memorial University today is a university that has the flexibility and the independence to continue to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As this debate continues today, and we look forward to the comments from my colleagues in this House, I think we will all see the relevance, the importance and the significance for government to continue to be engaged with the university. To continue to support the university, to continue to invest in the university, to continue to make the university the best that it can be to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is a priority for this government and certainly should be a priority for all members of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, we have experienced the success of Memorial. As a government we recognize the contribution Memorial makes to this Province, and I can tell you we certainly want it to continue. We will be there. We will support it.

Again, as a proud graduate of Memorial University, I encourage all members of the House to support this motion to affirm our support for academic freedom and academic autonomy for Memorial University.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to certainly have a few words with regard to the debate that is ongoing today, the motion that was put forward by the Member for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, as I sat attentively listening to the debate in the House of Assembly, I think it is quite off-centred from what the motion is. I am hearing members getting up and talking about challenging us on the other side to support the students and the faculty and the programs at the university. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no questioning any of that. We support it, always have supported it and will continue to support it, I say to the Member for Grand Bank. We have no problem with supporting the autonomy of the university. It is something that we have practiced in the days and the years that we have spent in government, unlike your government and unlike your minister and unlike your Premier, Mr. Speaker, who have meddled in the autonomy of the university on more than one occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the motion today, as I look at it, is talking about autonomy in a way that government today is trying to express an apology; an apology for their interference and their high-handed politics and their invasion of the rights and the academic freedoms of the university.

That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker. It is an apology resolution that we are looking at today, without them actually being big enough to admit: I did wrong and I should not have interfered. I should not have poked my ministerial nose into the business of the university because I had no right to do so.

Mr. Speaker, they posed a motion in the House of Assembly today without using that language but affording for the same interpretation and meaning, I say to hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between talking about the autonomy of the university than the economic and the accredited excellence of the facility. I listened to the member for Twillingate and Fogo talk about the excellence of the university - never a question, never called into question in this House. It has nothing to do with the motion that is on the floor of the House, so I would assume that whoever prepared the notes today for the members opposite to speak to this motion, they were somewhat off-centred because we are not debating the excellence of our academic institutions in this House today, or what programs they offer in the Province, where their campuses are, what innovative ideas they had. We are talking about: Does government have the right to stick their fingers into the business of the university to the point that they tell them who they can hire for their president? That is what we are talking about here today.

Mr. Speaker, it is an apology, really, on behalf of the government, to say that we should not have been in the business of the university. We should have left well enough alone and we should have done our job that is required of us as Lieutenant-Governor in Council and protected the economic freedoms of the university.

Mr. Speaker, government likes to confuse accountability with autonomy. They are two very different issues. I listened to the interviews over the course of the last number of weeks. In fact, I have copies of all kinds of interviews here, and clips from the minister herself, her comments, her continuously sticking her foot in her mouth and her fingers in the wrong pages of legislation. We have all kinds of clips here that support but also criticize government's involvement in this whole affair.

Listen, accountability is very different from autonomy. Government's accountability comes in many ways. I heard comments, I even heard it shouted across the floor here today, that we put $400 million into the university. Absolutely, you did, and so you should. So you should, Mr. Speaker. Any government that sits on that side of the House of Assembly has an obligation to fund our academic institutions, to provide for proper programs in this Province, to ensure that our young people have the opportunity for excellence in all facets of society, Mr. Speaker. That is their job. That is their obligation.

Let's not confuse the $400 million –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, do you think I could have some quiet in this House? I cannot hear myself think.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask for the co-operation of all members. The Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education likes to poke her fingers into business she has no affair in but she does not like to sit back in this House and listen to it when it is done. She does not like to hear it but she is going to hear it today.

Mr. Speaker, accountability is very different than autonomy. Just because the government invests in the academic excellence in institutions in this Province does not give them the right to interfere in certain aspects of it, like the selection of a president. In fact, this government appoints the Chair of the Board of Regents. They appoint twenty-one of the twenty-seven board members of the Board of Regents. They appoint the chancellor of the university. They have the majority of control over every and anything that happens within the university from the perspective that they appoint a Board of Regents, they appoint a Chair, they appoint a chancellor of the university. Everyone knows that the budget of the university is done line-by-line and it is approved by the Department of Finance – unless that has been changed but it has always been done that way. So, there are lots of ways in which accountability of the university and the money that government puts there is answered for in a number of ways.

Mr. Speaker, the interference of the Minister of Education in the selection of a president of the university has certainly damaged this institution within our Province. I do not say that lightly, I do not say that lightly at all. I say that because there are dozens and dozens of people out there in the academia profession who have certainly felt that way and expressed themselves very publicly, in news articles, in the media, on-line, in letters.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was even invited to a public forum at the university. When all of this happened back in September, I was invited to a public forum at the university, just to talk about the minister's interference and government's interference in the selection of a president for this university. That was how desperate that people were to reach out, Mr. Speaker, reach out and let their message be heard that the academic freedoms of our institution have to be protected.

So, Mr. Speaker, there were rallies, there were public forums – because I have the invitations here in my e-mail that I was invited to. In addition to that, there were others who expressed their opinions, and their opinions came immediately after the disclosure that the Minister of Education not only called in the two candidates to her office for an interview, but had prepared questions. Prepared questions, Mr. Speaker, to interview these candidates, interview them on what their position was on current government policy! Unheard of! Absolutely unheard of in the academia world of the nation, I say, Mr. Speaker. Unbelievable! It was on September 11 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked already for the co-operation of the House. I am having difficulty hearing the Leader of the Opposition. I will ask again for the co-operation of all members of the House.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it was on September 11 when the disclosure came that the Minister of Education not only had called these candidates in to interview them personally, but had prepared lists of questions. Questions in terms of what their positions would be with regard to government policy; where they were on supporting the initiatives of the government before they could be appointed to the most autonomous academic institution in our history. It was appalling, and it appalled the people in the academic world to the fact that it drew heavy criticism. It drew heavy criticism from groups all across the country, and she knows it, and their government knows it. People were appalled at the interference that was being taken by the minister, but let me tell you what some of them said.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers, for example, who chaired Memorial's Board of Regents at that time, said they were surprised. They were surprised that it even had gone this far. That government officials, during a presidential search process that had drawn scorn from academics as being botched and reeking of political interference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister herself must have, at some point, said: My God, I should not be interfering here. I am ruining one of the greatest institutions of our time, in our Province. I am taking away the academic freedoms and the institutional autonomy that they have earned over the years. Why? Because I want to be heavy-handed. Because I want to be the ruler of all things when it comes to education because I am the minister. I will tell you who you hire and when you hire them. Well, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't fly. That doesn't fly where you have institutions that are governed by Statutory Law. It doesn't fly, Mr. Speaker, in institutions where the academia and the freedoms of that need to be protected, so that we have a full-fledged democracy where people can express their opinions and express themselves.

Mr. Speaker, let's hear what the President of the University of Saskatchewan had to say, who is a native Newfoundlander and Labradorian, educated at Memorial. Dr. Ivany said that he understands that Memorial University's reputation has been harmed by this government's interference. This is what other doctors and professors of academia across the country are saying; because of the minister's and the Premier's interference. He went on to say that universities traditionally stand on their own independence, and there is hardly a government in the world that would interfere with that.

Now, those are some pretty strong statements that must have at some point registered with the minister for her to get her Parliamentary Secretary to bring in an apology motion in the House today to say: I am sorry, Memorial. We do support the autonomy of the university. I will haul my fingers out of the legislative piece now and I will let you carry on with your work.

Mr. Speaker, at some point between the Canadian Federation of Universities rapping the government on the knuckles and the professors of other universities across Canada speaking out against the motion and the movement of the government in this Province, the minister and the Premier and the rest of the government must have realized: Oops! I might have done something wrong here.

Mr. Speaker, they have insulted and belittled the reputation of our university by the way they have acted and by the way they have carried on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: They know it.

MS JONES: And they know it. That is why they brought this motion in today. Either that or they knew we were bringing one in anyway, because I had said it probably about ten times in the media, that we were going to raise this issue in the House and that we would be bringing forward a Private Members' Motion.

Too cute by far, Mr. Speaker! Let's run in and get our motion out and make our little apology to the university and smooth everything over. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first attempt by this government or this minister to smooth things over with the university; because, when all this controversy was going on, she issued a statement saying that they were going to work together, they were going to do this and they were going to do that, but it all backfired, didn't it, Minister? Because you failed to talk to the university. You failed to talk to them and explain to them what was happening, and that was the reason it all backfired in your face, Mr. Speaker. That was the reason.

Mr. Speaker, even at that time the acting president, Dr. Campbell - who the minister did not think was able or should not be the president of the university, although he is the acting president and apparently doing a fine job over at the university - from what I can understand, Mr. Speaker, he was not aware of what was going on, and that was the reason that it all backfired. He said that the university always expected to be kept accountable to the provincial government, but they do that through their Board of Regents. That is why government has the authority to appoint twenty-one members of the Board of Regents, the chancellor of the university, the chair of the Board of Regents, but not the president, Mr. Speaker, not the president.

So I see this motion today as their apology piece to the people at Memorial University, that we do understand your autonomy. We are prepared to support that for now but we will see, Mr. Speaker, if they practice what they preach. We will see, Mr. Speaker, if they practice what they preach and if they will stay out of the search process, allow the university to do their job, and support the recommendations that they bring forward; because, as we know, they are bringing forward recommendations now for changes in the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: So we will see if they support those.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure and an honour for me to be able to stand in my seat today and to speak on this very important motion. The motion is that the House of Assembly affirms its full support for the academic freedom and the academic autonomy of Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I support that motion wholeheartedly and without reservation.

I should say as well that there has been an amendment put by the Opposition and I believe, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on the debate on the amendment today. The amendment is that the resolution which I just read be amended to add, "and give consideration to measures which would result in the automatic acceptance of the recommendation brought forward by the Board of Regents for the appointment of a new president of the university."

I oppose the amendment but I support, without reservation, the motion.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial University, if not the, is one of the most important institutions that we have in this Province. I am proud to be a graduate of that university - as is my wife, as is my son; my daughter had other plans - but I know that in this House I would imagine there are quite a few members of this House who graduated from Memorial University. Some probably have more than one degree. Some have certificates and diplomas.

I heard or I read, I believe it was Professor Paul Wilson at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook, I read it in an article I think he wrote - I don't know who made the original statement - he said that a university can change a life, a university could change a town, a university could change a country.

I believe that. I have seen numerous examples of people whose lives have been affected for the better, and of places and countries whose prospects have been improved immensely once a university has been established in a new area.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there is a book written about the history of Memorial University College and Memorial University, and I know that back at that point people from here could not get educated in a university here in Newfoundland, obviously, and they went to Europe – there were a lot of people going to Europe - or they went to the mainland and attended universities there, and when the proposals were originally put forward to create a university - and I think they started off with a teachers' college - a lot of people said no, no, you cannot do it. A lot of people said no, they were opposed to it.

Thankfully, smarter people prevailed and we now have here not just a teachers' college, not a junior college, we have one of the foremost universities in the country if not the whole world. It continues to grow and it continues to expand, and the people of this Province have supported it with their tax dollars, and it is an institution of which we can be very, very proud.

I have noticed, in particular, under the leadership of the former president, Dr. Axel Meisen, how well Memorial has done in attracting research funds, and I think the hon. Member for Grand Bank mentioned that. I think he said number one, but he will speak to that later on.

Attracting research monies means, amongst other things, jobs for researchers, jobs for graduate students at the university, but coming out of that research will be new products and new processes and new ideas. Some bright young student or bright young graduate student or professor at Memorial, or maybe a graduate of the Department of Business or a student in the Department of Business, will seize on the new technologies coming out of that research and will commercialize those new products and new processes and new ideas to create new businesses, new opportunities that will, in turn, provide employment and economic growth for our people and our Province.

One of the differences of opinions that I had with Dr. Meisen was that I looked at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook and I said: You have another university there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: You have another university; it is already there. I keep hearing people say we are going to build a university in Corner Brook. The university is already in Corner Brook. The buildings are there. The professors are there. The executive are there. The students are there. We have another university.

My difference of opinion with Dr. Meisen, which I discussed with him, is that you are not taking advantage of what you have in Corner Brook, and that you could do there exactly - not in as large a way but in a similar way - on a smaller scale, what the university here in St. John's has been doing, and the wonderful things that it has been doing in terms of attracting research money.

Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, the university in Corner Brook, the university campus in Corner Brook, is filled with professors and assistant professors who have their Ph.D, and they are the people that attract research dollars. They can attract those research dollars and do the same thing at the campus in Corner Brook as has been happening here in the campus in St. John's and at the Marine Centre, and we have to do that throughout the whole Province.

We are doing it in aquaculture. The research and development for aquaculture is taking place down in St. Alban's. I can see us doing more in aerospace in Gander, and doing mining in Labrador, for example. We have announced recently the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council which is headed by the executive director, Mr. Glenn Janes of Corner Brook, a graduate of Oxford University in England, who will be the lead on that. Memorial University here and Memorial University's campus in Corner Brook will continue to take advantage of that, and we can see not only jobs but economic development for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the motion is about university autonomy and it is a motion that I support, but university autonomy, as I understand it, is to ensure that people who work at the university have the right to say whatever they want, to have the right to teach whatever they want, the right to publish whatever they want, the right to criticize those who operate the university, criticize government and I support that fully.

I have not seen one instance where there has actually been an interference with the academic autonomy at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Those who say there has been, I think it is a red herring. I think it is a canard. Show me the interference, because no one in this Province and no one in this House would accept interference with academic freedom of autonomy at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I know the Premier is a graduate of Memorial University. The Minister of Education is a graduate of Memorial University. They would not allow any interference with academic freedom in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I believe that most sincerely. I do not think the members in this House of Assembly would allow something like that to happen, because we have too much respect and we have too much regard for Memorial University of Newfoundland, the people who teach there, the people that run the executive there, and the students as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am also a believer, not only in the freedom of autonomy at the university but I am also a believer in what we call the rule of law. I am also a believer that the rules we make and the laws we make are made by – not by dictators and not by tyrants, but made by the elected representatives of the people.

Memorial University of Newfoundland is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we cannot forget that, can never forget that. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador who own the university will act through their elected representatives and through the Cabinet of their elected representatives, to act on their behalf. It is similar to any corporation. In any corporation you might have the shareholders. The shareholders elect the directors. The directors pick the president and the president picks the executive to run the institution.

In Memorial, you have the people as the shareholders. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador own the university. They are the ones, through their elected representatives, that pick the board of directors, that pick the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents, with the approval of the government, after consultation with the Senate, will pick the president of the university.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read from section 51 of the legislation which talks about the choosing of a president. It says: There shall be a president of the university who shall be appointed by the board – and that is the Board of Regents – in consultation with the Senate.

Obviously, the board of directors, in determining a president, should first hold consultations with the Senate. The Senate do not have a power of veto, but they are certainly entitled to be consulted, and I would expect that the advice of the Senate would be very welcome by the Board of Regents in going through this process. Then once the Board of Regents, after consultation with the Senate, select a name, it calls then for the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the approval of the representatives of the people. The approval – because the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is, of course, the Cabinet as selected by the people of this Province. So accordingly, I cannot support the amendment to the resolution, and that the president of the institution certainly must have input. Certainly, the government representing the people of the Province has a very important role in this particular area.

Again, I have seen no example of interference with autonomy, and I talk about the rule of law. I talk about the fact that the section of this act, section 51, that govern how the university president is selected, was passed in this Chamber. Was passed in the Chamber where the representatives of the people carry out their business.

It is written here that this section, section 51, was passed in 1973. So that means that every president of the university since 1973 was appointed under this particular law. The Board of Regents had an influence, the Senate was consulted, but ultimately, the representatives of the people, the government, had the right to approve, based on the fact that not only do you have the academic side of the university, but you also have the financial side. You also have an institution which has buildings and needs people to look after them, has administration, has human resources and these issues. The funding is provided, of course, by the people, through this House of Assembly, through the budget process, and therefore it is obviously important that the people of this Province, through their government, have a role, have an influence in determining who the ultimate president will be.

The minister also has an obligation to her colleagues. When the Board of Regents, after consultation with the Senate, should make it a proposal, then obviously the minister, on behalf of the government, would have to do an analysis. The members of the Cabinet would have to look to the minister for advice. So when people say the minister is interfering with the autonomy of the university, when the minister wants an opportunity to talk to the candidates for president, I do not see that as interference. I see the minister as carrying out her responsibility to ensure that when the motion comes forward as to whether or not the Lieutenant-Governor in Council should approve the suggestion, the members of the government would look to the minister for her recommendation and her advice. That is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have a role in this process, because it is their university. The people of this Province express their will through their elected representatives. The laws that we have passed here, the law that the minister is following, the law that we must all follow, because we are all bound by the law. Whether you are the Premier, or whether you are the Minister of Justice, or whether you are the Minister of Education, the law applies equally to everybody. No one is above the law. So we have to follow the law. We have to follow the law until such time as the law is changed.

Now, I just want to mention, because I see the clock ticking down, that there is an ad hoc committee of the regents and the Senate who are going to make recommendations to this government. I look forward to that because I think we will take those recommendations very seriously. There will be a lot of wisdom, and I know we are all anxious to see what they have to say, but other people will have an interest. Many people have an interest in the affairs of this university, even those who have not graduated from the place. That is what I found.

We will take the views of the people, including this ad hoc committee, including the Senate, including the Board of Regents, very, very seriously, but in the end, Mr. Speaker, it will be the people of this House, it will be the elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland –

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

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

By leave, I will just wrap up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. T. MARSHALL: No leave.

Thank you very much for the courtesies extended to me today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion today that has been brought in as a private member's resolution to this House.

When I first heard the motion being made in the House last week, I think it was, I wondered at the purpose for the resolution. When you read the main resolve, this is of the main resolution without the amendment, it comes across as motherhood. Of course we believe in academic freedom and of course we believe in academic autonomy for Memorial University. Anybody who has any sense at all does that. Most of us in this room, I think, are graduates of university and most of us are graduates of Memorial. So, whether we are talking about Memorial University or we are talking about the University of Toronto or we are talking about McGill, no matter which university we are talking about, academic freedom and academic autonomy are something that we definitely say that we believe in. I mean, nobody in the free world would think otherwise.

I was rather disturbed by the resolution, not because of the content but because of the way in which it was being put forward, because I think that the resolution is game playing. I was very interested in the whereases in the main resolution and they are all wonderful statements and statements that I could definitely agree with. The one that really struck me was the third whereas which says that, "…the Government recognizes that autonomy is a necessary precondition to the proper functioning of Memorial University and has accepted the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada's "Statement of Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy"."

Then we come down to the main resolve and what we see is, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly affirms its full support for the academic freedom and academic autonomy of Memorial University."

Well, I find it very interesting that while the member and I take it his colleagues in his party, while they say they accept and agree with the statement of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, all they are asking us to support in the resolution is academic freedom and academic autonomy. There is quite a difference between saying academic autonomy and institutional autonomy. I do not think I have to go into giving a lesson, but I think we would all know that academic autonomy would have to do with the autonomy that is there in the University and in the individuals who teach in the University in terms of the programs and in terms of how the programs are taught. That would be the academic autonomy.

That is quite different from institutional autonomy. It is institutional autonomy that for me is the main issue. There is a reason why this resolution is here on the floor today. The reason it is on the floor is because we had something unprecedented, in our history with Memorial University, happen back in the spring. What was unprecedented was that when the Board of Regents presented the name of the person or persons - because I do not know if it was one or two, I have no idea - to government as the person that they were considering for the presidency of the university, we had something strange happen; strange in terms of what our practice has been in this Province. It was that the government, through the Minister of Education, intervened in the process and made a decision that what was being recommended by the Board of Regents was not acceptable.

Now, I know what is in our Act, we all know what is in our Act and we also know what is in our practice. We know that has never ever happened before in the history of the university, that the practice understanding is that the Board of Regents with senate, the Board of Regents then coming back to the Board of Regents, would make a recommendation to government and government would respect the wisdom of those who are on the Board of Regents, most of whom are appointed by government, that they would respect their wisdom and accept the person they nominated.

That is why we are here today. We are here today not because we are saying, or I am saying or anybody else is saying, whether it is the Association of Universities and colleges across Canada, whether it is the Association of University Teachers, whether it is people around the world - I am not saying that this government does not understand academic autonomy or went against academic autonomy or went against academic freedom. What we had an experience of was a government ignoring institutional autonomy.

We are not dealing with the issue that is put forward in this resolution. We are dealing with the issue of what really happened. That is why, when I look at the amendment that has been proposed for the motion which adds to the motion as it stands, "and give consideration to measures which would result in the automatic acceptance of the recommendation brought forward by the Board of Regents for the appointment of a new president for the university", for me, the amendment speaks directly to the issue that we have been dealing with in this Province that started back last spring. That is the crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is that we have to make sure that from here on in the Board of Regents are able to appoint the President of the University. That doesn't mean that they have carte blanche. They have to be accountable for everything that they do, from every cent they spend right through to whom they hire and whom they appoint. They have to be accountable.

This government doesn't seem to understand the difference between autonomy and accountability. Universities all over Canada are getting vast sums of money from provincial governments; vast sums of money. In Nova Scotia every single university – I might get my number wrong today so I won't say it, but it is over ten, it is somewhere up around eleven or thirteen of them – all get money from the government, but they appoint their presidents. They choose them and they appoint them. That doesn't mean they are not accountable for how they spend the money that is given them by government, but our government seems to not understand the difference between that autonomy and that accountability.

While I agree and I will be voting for the amendment to the motion because I think we have got to change things so that what happened this spring can't happen again, I would be happy to vote for the motion totally if, with the amendment, I could add another amendment.

My other amendment is:

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly affirms its full support for the academic freedom and institutional autonomy of Memorial University.

I would be amending the resolution that came by changing one word in that resolution.

It is seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will take a brief recess and look at the sub-amendment.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The Chair rules that the amendment, as put forth by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is not in order and that it conflicts with the thrust of the original motion.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will still have time to speak to the motion, so I will take my time.

If that is the ruling of the Chair, that really tells me something, because that means the Chair understands something which I was pointing out. The Chair understands the difference between saying academic autonomy and institutional autonomy. The ruling of the Chair really backs up what I am talking about, that the motion that has been given to us deliberately put in "academic autonomy" rather than "institutional", when in the whereases of the motion the mover said that he accepted the statement of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the statement on academic freedom and institutional autonomy, but then deliberately in the motion said academic autonomy not institutional. What I have been saying is correct, that the Chair has ruled that by putting in "institutional" it changes the intent. That is very, very interesting because that proves my point.

I want to speak further to that point in the short time that I have left.

The difference between institutional autonomy and academic autonomy is an issue that has been picked up for the last six months throughout this country because of what happened here in Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to the presidency of our University. We have had statements from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. We have had statements from the Association of University Teachers. We have had statements from the Memorial University Faculty Association. We have had statements from the Regents of Memorial University. We have had statements from the Senate of Memorial University. We have had statements from the Acting-President of Memorial University. All of them say the same thing, that there is a difference between academic autonomy and institutional autonomy.

All of those statements say the same thing as well. They point out that institutional autonomy is basic to the freedom of the university, that institutional autonomy has to be in place, that institutional autonomy cannot be played around with. What they have all said in their statements, what they have all said, is that interference in the appointment of the president of a university, that interference in that appointment is a break with the institutional autonomy that should be expected of the university. There is absolutely no doubt. In every document that I have read, in every statement that I have found on this, pointing out that need for institutional autonomy is in everything.

According to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which has been backed up, affirmed by the Senate, affirmed by the Regency, affirmed by all the groups that I have talked about, they say that preserving institutional autonomy while ensuring appropriate government stewardship of public investments in universities is a constant, delicate balancing act but it has to happen. The government has to make sure, which it does, that it has in place everything that it needs to hold the university accountable for the expenditure of the money that it receives from government. That is in place; the auditing procedure, the way in which books are kept, the fact that the Board of Regents has a majority of people appointed by the government. There are structures in place to ensure that the University will be accountable for every penny that it spends, but that does not mean that because it receives money from the university and spends it that it cannot be autonomous. It has to be autonomous. It is at the very core of what university is all about.

You know, when I read the resolution that was the first thing that struck me; this is a deliberate denial of Memorial University having the right to autonomy. This resolution, the first one that came to us denies that. The amendment is trying to deal with the fact that we have to change that in this Province. We have to come into the twenty-first century. We have to bring our act and we have to bring our practices into the twenty-first century. We have to do what is done in universities and post-secondary institutions, colleges across Canada. We have to give the university its autonomy.

That is what the amendment is about, so that is why I will be voting for the amendment. The amendment says we have to rectify the way things are. That is what the point of that amendment is. That is how I understand it. So, I will be doing that.

I am very, very disappointed that the government side and that the member who brought this resolution forward deliberately put in our hands a motherhood statement –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

According to Standing Order 63.(6), at 4:45 we revert to the mover of the motion to close the debate.

MS MICHAEL: 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 am pleased to certainly bring closure to the debate today.

Let me say at the outset, it is unfortunate that our Minister of Education did not get to participate in the debate today. For members who are watching this, and members of the House, I would just simply share that, because of Standing Orders, at 4:45 the obligation is to have the final speaker be the person who brought the motion forward.

Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all to members of the Opposition across the way, I am certainly seeing some mixed messages coming through here.

Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, we saw a press release come out from the hon. Member for Port de Grave, talking about government's involvement with the university over the past number of months, and that obviously we are not recognizing we have done anything wrong. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition stands in the House and talks about it being an apology motion. So we need to get the messaging straight, I think, Mr. Speaker, before we can go forward.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: Now, Leader of the Opposition, you had your time to talk. You will get a chance again.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. I want to thank members opposite, because the Member for Port de Grave started out by saying to me that he agreed with most of my comments in the motion. I want to thank him for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I want to thank the hon. member for that. I really do appreciate that; and, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition also said she had no problem supporting our motion on autonomy, and I really do appreciate that. I really do appreciate that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: With respect to the third speaker, of course, I did hear the comment that most of what is in my motion was motherhood statements. I appreciate that. I am not sure how to take your second statement. Mr. Speaker, the statement was made that I am disturbed by the comments because they are all wonderful. I am not sure what that means, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps that is a discussion for another day.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the members opposite, I am extremely looking forward with interest to their vote on the motion. I am looking forward to members opposite standing with us and endorsing autonomy for Memorial University.

I am really excited, Mr. Speaker, because if they are not prepared to do that, I say what are you going to say to the students of this Province – to the Leader of the Opposition - and what are you going to say to the professors and the staff at Memorial that we are trying to show support for in this House, and what are you going to say to the public who see the need of government support for that institution?

I do look forward, indeed, to seeing you stand once again and offering your support for this motion, I say to the Member for Cartwright. I look forward to that indeed.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time - I know my colleagues are interested in moving on - let me say this. We on this side of the House recognize the importance of education in this Province and we recognize the importance that Memorial University plays in providing an education to the students of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that it is only with their continued support and their continued delivery of the programs they deliver that we are going to get well-educated students, and it is only through that mechanism, Mr. Speaker, that our Province will continue to grow and to flourish into the future, as our government has enabled it to do in the last five years, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that the motion that has been put forward is indeed intended to offer our continued support for the academic autonomy of Memorial University. We fully endorse and fully support the right and the need for the staff and the professors at Memorial to teach programs in a manner that is required by our students, so that they are kept abreast of what is happening in the world, and that they are receiving an education that is going to meet the needs of the Province, Mr. Speaker. We are fully committed to that and, as I said, I do look forward to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP and the other two Opposition members standing with us and supporting my motion.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will bring closure to the debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, rising on a point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just on a point of order.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just on a point of order, the Member for Grand Bank who moved the motion today, and we thank him for that, made reference to the fact that there was not enough time for the minister to speak on the issue. We have ten minutes left and we certainly have no problem, if the minister wishes to speak on the motion, allowing her to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The debate on the motion is completed. The member moving the motion closed the motion.

Is the House now ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we are.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The amendment is, as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave: That the motion be amended by adding to the end; "and give consideration to measures which would result in the automatic acceptance of the recommendations brought forward by the Board of Regents for the appointment of a new president for the university."

All those in favour of the amendment, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is lost.

MS JONES: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready?

All those in favour of the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those against the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Skinner –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members for their co-operation. There is a vote taking place in the House and I ask for members to please acknowledge the fact that members' names are being identified.

CLERK: Mr. Jackman, Ms Whelan, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Collins, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Pottle, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Oram, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Kent, Dr. King, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Perry, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Hunter, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. Peach, Mr. Verge, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Harding, Mr. French, Mr. Young, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes four; the nays thirty-eight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This being Private Members' Day and the private member's resolution has been debated, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.