The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome sixteen Grade 12 students from St. Joseph's All Grade from the District of Bellevue. The students are accompanied by their principal, Mr. Paul Watson; teachers, Tom Kennedy and Maggie Sullivan; and their bus driver, Alf Kearley.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome nineteen Grade 8 students from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary from the District of St. Georges-Stephenville East. The students are accompanied by their teachers, Darlene Sexton, Lisa Gallivan; chaperones, Parnell Hallett and Gerald Sexton; and their bus driver, Vaughn Hepperan.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the volunteers, supporters and cancer survivors involved in the Bay d'Espoir Cancer Benefit Concert.

Chaired by Ms Helena Thornhill, the Bay d'Espoir Cancer Benefit Concert has enjoyed over a decade of tremendous success. Each year, the amount of funds raised surpasses the previous one, reaching a remarkable $150,000 last year. This is no small feat, Mr. Speaker, especially in a rural remote area with a relatively small population base.

These donations were raised in a mere twelve hours through activities such as the daffodil tree in memory of loved ones, ticket sales, craft booths, head shaving and music from local entertainers of all ages.

The support they provide to cancer patients in the communities of Bay d'Espoir is truly astounding. They help to offset costs for travel, meals, accommodations, prescription drugs not covered by medical plans, prosthesis, special foods such as Boost or Ensure and more.

Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of people to make an event like this such a great success. I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing the efforts of these outstanding volunteers – your hard work is very appreciated, and we look forward to another decade of tremendous support.

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.

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House to recognize the wonderful work that the Georgestown Neighbourhood Association does for their community.

Georgestown is a unique neighbourhood in the heart of old St. John's – enclosed by Military Road, Bonaventure Avenue, Monkstown Road, Carpasian Road and Empire Avenue.

The association was founded in the year 2000 at a public meeting of residents interested in building that community and it is open to all residents and run by a volunteer board.

Their goal is to keep neighbours informed, active and in-touch with one another and is dedicated to improving the quality of life through community service, proactive response to issues and working on a sense of togetherness.

They monitor and address issues concerning the well-being and quality of life in the neighbourhood, and seek to preserve and enhance the social and physical environment of the neighbourhood community.

In particular, the Georgestown Neighbourhood Association is collaborating with the City of St. John's to create a plan to guide future development in the neighbourhood. They hold neighbourhood planning events with topics such as gentrification and diversity, green space, how high to build, mobility and transportation, and zoning.

They organize an annual spring clean up, which is very successful, a flea market and barbeque in the summer, as well as the winter skating party. They also do good things for the environment like organize the dead battery drop off.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Georgestown Neighbourhood Association and all its volunteers for their dedication. They are a wonderful example for other communities and I wish them continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate the members of the Stephenville High School Band who were in New York City from May 2 to May 10 to participate in the Heritage Music Festival.

The Heritage Music Festival is a large organization that plans and organizes music festivals in most major centres in North America.

Eighty high school students, ten chaperones, ten parents, seven former graduates of the school and former members of the school band, and of course their highly talented band teacher, Mr. Howard Larade, made the trip to New York City.

The students performed at the Riverside Church; the tallest church in the United States and the twenty-fifth tallest in the world. The performance, Mr. Speaker, earned them a mark of 91.333 and an amazing gold medal. They were ranked first in their class, placing ahead of schools from Canada and the United States.

As a result of winning the gold medal, they are invited to return next April, Mr. Speaker, to perform at the prestigious Carnegie Hall in New York – yes, Mr. Speaker, at the famous Carnegie Hall. What an honour, Mr. Speaker, for our students, our school, and our Province.

I ask all hon. members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the members of the Stephenville School Band under the musical guidance of Mr. Howard Larade on a tremendous performance in the Big Apple.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a young and very active volunteer in the District of Bellevue, Corey Hudson.

Corey has volunteered a great deal of his time to various committees and organizations throughout his community. Corey is a graduate from the College of the North Atlantic with Civil Engineering Technologist.

He serves on the Norman's Cove-Long Cove Town Council, the fire department, the recreation committee, the beach festival committee, the Norman's Cove-Long Cove 2903 Cadet Corps, the Norman's Cove-Long Cove Town clean up committee, chair of public works committee, fire and emergency joint town planning committee of Norman's Cove-Long Cove and Chapel Arm. He is also responsible for developing town integrated community sustainability plan for Norman's Cove-Long Cove and he canvasses for both diabetes and for Epilepsy Newfoundland.

Corey, Mr. Speaker, along with all his volunteer dedication to his town, travelled to New Orleans for three consecutive years and volunteered after Hurricane Katrina. He helped to rebuild the roads, schools, and community centres and assessed private home structures.

Mr. Speaker, Corey Hudson was one of the eight URock award winners this past weekend, May 14, 2011 and of which I had the great privilege of attending.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Corey Hudson, and all eight award winners of URock awards in the great volunteer work they do in their communities, towns and area. Your volunteer work is making a difference throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. To all volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador, we want to say URock.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to provide an update on the development of the Provincial Minerals Strategy.

In keeping with the provincial government's commitment to responsible, sustainable development of Newfoundland and Labrador's mineral resources, public consultations on the development of a Minerals Strategy have been completed. These consultations, held with industry and other key stakeholders, helped identify areas of interest as we move ahead with the strategy's development.

I am pleased to report that close to 120 people attended the fourteen sessions held in communities throughout the Province. Two workshop sessions were also held in April, and involved industry and environmental representatives. The first session focused on the environment and sustainable mining practices, while the second session addressed exploration incentives, industry assistance, and the streamlining of regulatory processes to ensure that we continue to have a competitive business climate that encourages investment and exploration. Consultations were held with the Nunatsiavut Government and the Innu Nation. We also received thirty-one private submissions which can be viewed online, Mr. Speaker. I thank all participants for their valuable input which will help to strengthen the strategy's development.

Mr. Speaker, a Minerals Strategy will help to ensure long-term industry viability by supporting exploration and development. It will help us determine how best to attract investment and interest into the Province, while providing further clarification to companies and investors interested in doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our Province's mining industry is a major contributor to our economy, representing more than 10 per cent of the Province's Gross Domestic Product. In 2011, the forecasted gross value of mineral shipments is $4.8 billion with exploration expenditures expected to be $127 million. This industry provides meaningful employment of over 5,000 person years in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in our rural communities. Employment is expected to increase this year as a result of more opportunities becoming available at mining operations throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a solid long-term plan in place to capitalize on the economic and employment opportunities associated with this industry. A Minerals Strategy will focus on creating additional employment opportunities, the sustainable development of our non-renewable mineral resources, and environmental protection, while contributing to future growth and success in the best interest of the people of the Province. I look forward to the continued work on the development of this strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. There is no doubt in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we have been blessed with a wealth of natural resources. It is the responsibility of the government to aid in the development of these resources and to make sure that there is a clear path forward to maximize benefits from these assets so that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in general, benefit.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that the consultations for the provincial Minerals Strategy has been occurring and been well received. We hope that the strategy will form a comprehensive basis for supporting exploration development within the Province and within the mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we hope that it also promotes job creation and, with it, good economic spinoffs for many regions of our Province. We have learned from industrial development in this Province as well, and that is that we have to be cognizant of the environment and that we develop in a sustainable manner.

Mr. Speaker, the mining industry in this Province certainly bounced back from the recent recession. In fact, we have seen our mineral shipments nearly doubled in the last year compared to 2009, and we are hoping the market conditions will improve. We look forward to seeing the expansions at IOC and Wabush Mines. We certainly look forward to seeing new mines coming on stream in this Province, the ones with Labrador Iron Mines and New Millennium in particular. We wait to see what the Inuit in Northern Labrador will do with Paladin mines in developing their operations up there.

Mr. Speaker, all in all there are a lot of exciting new opportunities being developed in the mining industry for both gold, iron, copper, zinc, and rare minerals. We certainly would encourage government to do the final strategy and to bring it forward for the mining industry as soon as possible.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 advance copy of his statement. It is important that this consultation took place and that the Department of Natural Resources is looking at the whole issue of sustainable development of Newfoundland and Labrador's mineral resources. It is absolutely important because of the fact that minerals are not a renewable resource, that the mining has to create sustainability not just for the mining industry itself but for the communities that are affected by the mining that goes on and for the Province. Trying to do it in a way that is going to bring benefits to everybody is extremely important.

For eighteen months in this Province, we had a labour issue that lasted right into 2011 which began in 2009 and that had to do with the strike with regard to Voisey's Bay, Mr. Speaker. These kinds of events that happen have to be dealt with as well when looking at sustainability of the industry. I notice that the minister did mention that one of the things they did look at during the consultations was the streamlining of regulatory processes to ensure that we continue to have competitive business.

I would urge the minister, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that they do not streamline regulatory processes when it comes to labour relations and to labour issues. If we do not have a workforce that feels safe in the workplace and feels that their rights are being recognized and that they are being treated fairly, then the mining industry will not be sustainable here in this Province.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of four-year-olds in the Province are now proud owners of two children's books, thanks to a new partnership between the Department of Education and the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board, which administers Newfoundland and Labrador's public libraries.

The children are participants in KinderStart, a school transition program offered to all children in the year prior to Kindergarten. They were given a coupon to visit their local library and receive their first book and a library card. On their return visit, they were presented with a second book.

Mr. Speaker, 86 per cent of our population lives within twenty-four kilometres of a public library, which is quite remarkable for a Province with our geography. In areas where the distance is greater, the books were mailed to their homes.

The overall goal of this $75,000 initiative is to provide children throughout the Province with quality literature, as well as to promote story time and early literacy programming offered through public libraries.

Mr. Speaker, this program has been a great success to date. One mother said, "My son will be a better reader than I am. He wants to come to the library every day now." That is the kind of reaction we were hoping for, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly intend to continue this initiative next year with two new book selections.

Early childhood learning is a priority for government, Mr. Speaker. In Budget 2011, we announced a commitment of $4.8 million over the next three years to begin implementation of our early childhood learning strategy, Learning From the Start, with an initial focus on children from birth to age three. The goal is to give every child the best possible start in life, and a strong foundation for their future development and learning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. Surely, it is a good thing to see four-year-olds in our Province, or any age for that matter, being presented with reading material. The minister noted that 86 per cent of the population of our Province live within twenty-four kilometres of a public library. My district would be one that certainly would be an exception to that. Much of the population would be much further than that away from a public library and would not have the advantage of going in there every day. To have books mailed to them is certainly a good thing and a good program. It is good to see the response in statement by one mother, and I would trust that that would a similar reaction, Mr. Speaker, from many of them.

Introducing children to libraries at an early age is important and in the absence of the library, being able to make that connection so that children get involved in reading is very important. We realize that literacy in our Province is certainly below the national average, and these initiatives, I trust, would help to bring that gap together and to improve their quality of reading and so on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 with the initiative that she has told us about here this afternoon. The more that we can get books into the hands of young children in particular, the better it is going to be for the long-term development in our Province, Mr. Speaker. The fact that this initiative encourages children with their parents to become local library users where libraries exist is also great.

However, I would like to see libraries getting more funding so they can offer more things like reading sessions with small children around the Province. This is something that children really do enjoy, so the more we can offer it the better.

This kind of initiative certainly has a long-term vision, Mr. Speaker, to deal with our problem of illiteracy down the road. We still need to deal, of course, with illiteracy in older persons. The latest data that is available reveals that over 50 per cent of people aged sixteen to sixty-five in our Province are still scoring in the two lowest literacy proficiency levels. So while we deal with the younger children with the long-term vision, we also need to increase working with older persons as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The Chair just stands to make a correction in the welcoming of some students here to the House of Assembly from St. Joseph's School. My understanding is it is Grade 10 and Grade 11 schools, and the member wanted to make sure that I welcomed people correctly. Again, I apologize for the mistake.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in April 2005, the government started work on its cancer control strategy. They released the framework in November 2010, and note that was just a framework they released five years later, not necessarily the strategy. At that time, Mr. Speaker, they said they would put a Cancer Control Advisory Committee in place. I think they actually named the chair.

I ask the minister today: Has this committee been appointed? Are they in place? Is there work being done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite knows, we have invested significant amounts of money, time, and effort in the treatment of cancer in this Province. Cancer is a disease, Mr. Speaker, that affects all of us – everyone in this House and everyone in our society.

Mr. Speaker, last year in the Budget we brought in the colorectal cancer screening program which I am sure will go a long ways in terms of that devastating cancer. We did bring in the cancer control strategy through an advisory committee. Names have been submitted, Mr. Speaker, and we are waiting for the finalization of that.

Mr. Speaker, in this year's Budget we invested another $17.2 million for the completion of the PET/CT cyclotron project. Mr. Speaker, we recently announced our continued implementation of the Cameron recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, everyone on this side of the House and everyone in this House takes the treatment of this very devastating disease very seriously, and we are all doing everything we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the committee is not in place. It took government five years to get a framework – not a strategy, just a framework. It has taken them since November, now, to try and put an advisory committee in place. Mr. Speaker, not only do we have the highest rate of colorectal cancer in the country, but we also have the most people dying from it, and we have the second-highest, overall, death rate from cancer in Atlantic Canada.

Minister, I ask you: Why have you delayed putting this committee in place, because consequently, you are delaying a cancer control strategy for our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the framework that was announced is, Mr. Speaker, a strategy. It outlines our plan to deal with cancer prevention, through promoting a healthy population, identifying individuals at risk, coordinating care, supportive and palliative care.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite I am sure is aware, a committee or an advisory council has to be comprised of individuals who can bring something to the table. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the VP of Cancer Care of Eastern Health will be on the advisory council. We have representatives of each of the regional health authorities, or the health authorities. We have, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society, we have put forward names of a number of members of the public who are cancer survivors. What we are doing is we are simply finalizing the committee. As the member opposite knows, or should know, having sat in government, there is a process we have to go through, and we are finalizing that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs what was in place in case Canadian postal workers went on strike in this Province, to ensure that cheques would be delivered. He obviously did not know about the issue or had no plan. He referred it to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, who later stated in the media that there is no plan. So, I would like to remind the government, Mr. Speaker, that we could see a strike as early as Tuesday.

I ask the minister today: it is twenty-four hours later, you now know about the issue, maybe you could tell us what plan is in place to ensure that government cheques will continue to get out in the event of a postal strike?

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

.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not need the member opposite to remind me of what is happening in the Province, I am very well aware, and very much on top of our affairs. I will remind the member that she directed the question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs yesterday, she did not direct it to me. Furthermore, her question was about Newfoundland entering into an agreement with other provinces in Canada. If she had asked me the question, I would have provided the answer, and I provided the answer this morning, Mr. Speaker.

We have a plan in place; we will have a plan in place. We are focused on planning with our own department and with our regional offices. We recognize that people who are expecting to receive these cheques are in very vulnerable situations. We are very cognizant of that. We will have a plan in place for communication so that we can let people know very clearly how they are going to get their cheques. Mr. Speaker, it is not rocket science. If the postal service does not deliver it, we either have to deliver it or they pick them up, it is very simple. We have more than 100 offices in this Province that we can use as distribution sites and we will have a communications plan that explains all of that to the public if and when we get to that point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A lame excuse; I have asked questions to ministers in this House all the time and other ministers have answered. It is quite obvious that government, including the minister opposite, did not have an answer, Mr. Speaker, or he would have been the first one on his feet yesterday, I can guarantee you that.

Mr. Speaker, postal workers have informed us that this would not cost the government anything to avail of the services that they are providing and they could process and get all the cheques to people in the Province within twenty-four-hours.

I ask you, Minister, here we are into a long weekend, I ask you why you did not opt into that program that would have guaranteed quick and cost-effective delivery of cheques to people in this Province, people who will need that money on the day it is supposed to be received?

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

MR. KING: The member opposite said one thing right, Mr. Speaker, at the very end of her statement, that those people who are expecting those cheques need the cheques.

Let me explain very clearly what the member opposite obviously does not understand. We deliver cheques every, single day in this Province; every, single day, and for more than 20,000 cheques. They go out twice a month.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the offer from Canada Post - the offer that was on the table by the way, we did not reject it, we said it causes difficulty. The member does not understand that. The offer that is on the table offered delivery once a month, in about three week's time, Mr. Speaker. Also, it offered delivery only in urban Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member opposite has little concern for recipients in rural Newfoundland or not, last week she stood up and talked about not wanting to consult with people, yesterday she talked about not wanting to put dialysis on the Burin Peninsula. What is it, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has dropped the ball on this file and he knows it. He is trying to save face. Mr. Speaker, he is trying to save face now because twenty-four-hours ago he had no idea what was going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday our good friend of the Premier's, Mr. Stephen Harper, reappointed Fabian Manning to the Senate.

I would like to ask the Premier today: Is she prepared or in the process of reappointing another one of her failed Conservative candidates, Mr. John Ottenheimer, who used to be the chair of Nalcor until a few weeks ago - is she planning to reappoint him to that position or is she planning to reappoint him to another position, such as the representative for Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes you have to be like Theseus with his ball of wool in the maze to follow the logic of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know how you can reappoint somebody to a new position. Anyway, I think I got the gist of what she is asking, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no plans around appointments at this point in time. We are looking at the board of Nalcor, there are several vacancies there that need to be filled, Mr. Speaker, and we will look at all candidates.

Let me say this, Mr. Ottenheimer has been a fine man to have involved to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this House and elsewhere, and on the board of Nalcor. I would have no compunction at all at reappointing or appointing him to a new position, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the Premier likes to pattern herself after Mr. Harper, so I guess we will wait and see if Mr. Ottenheimer gets reappointed back into Nalcor corporation or actually gets a new appointment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Whenever we ask questions in the House about Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, the Premier continues to provide wrong information or no information. A case in point was yesterday in the House when the Premier stated that Holyrood produced some 37 per cent of the Province's energy in 2009. We know, Mr. Speaker, that in 2009 Holyrood only produced 17.8 per cent of the Province's energy.

I ask the Premier today: Why did you provide that information to the House of Assembly when we know it was wrong and that there is other information out there that says it was 17.8 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I thank the Leader of the Opposition for saying that I follow in the steps of Mr. Harper and what happens to Mr. Harper happens to me, because I guess we are on path for a majority government in October.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take that for granted. I am going to work hard to win the respect and support of the people of this Province. I am confident that when they look at the body of work that has been done by this government, that we will continue to have their support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has no compunction at all here in the House of Assembly, and on every media outlet that she can get herself, by stating that Holyrood only produces 11 per cent of the electricity that we need in this Province when she knows that that is only the case for one year. Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House, time and time again, there is a range and there is an average of electricity generated by Holyrood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows the information was wrong, and that is the reason that she is just up talking for the sake of talking. When she talks about winning majority governments and patterning herself after Harper in that way, maybe if you were Calgary, Premier, but I would not get up on your high horse just yet in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be the people out in the Province who have that final say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls Project was developed in secret and negotiated behind closed doors. Information from government has been incomplete and contradictory. There are no prospects of meaningful debate in the House of Assembly, no assurance of release of legal documents, and no chance of a truly independent review before we reach a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: Will the Premier allow the Public Utilities Board to conduct a full set of public hearings with no preconditions, no restrictions, no exclusions, and no attempt to rig the decision beforehand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is getting confused. What she just described was, in fact, what happened in 2000 when she was a member of the Grimes government, Mr. Speaker. They brought in the enabling legislation to allow the development of the Lower Churchill to be exempted. They issued the order that the Lower Churchill be exempted from regulation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if anybody has any difficulty with what I am saying, I would encourage them to go to the government's Web site, to go to the House of Assembly, to go to the section on regulations, and they will see the order that you issued in 2000 to exempt Lower Churchill from regulatory review by the PUB. What this government is doing is bringing the PUB back in, something they did not want to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows that the Grimes deal was power for export. It was not power that was going to be paid for by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The Premier also knows the deal was –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, continue with her questions.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, she also knows that the deal was based on a Lower Churchill Project, not a Muskrat Falls Project that gives away ownership to other provinces like Emera in Nova Scotia, and not a deal that was going to gouge the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows the difference and it is a different deal.

I say to you, Premier: It is up to you to put this through a full and open process, and will you do that on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why do you want to preside over a secret deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you.

So, Mr. Speaker, she is absolutely right: They exempted the whole 3,000 megawatts of the Lower Churchill from review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what we know. We know that the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were not shared the details of the 2000 deal. We know that the PUB was exempted from review of the 3,000 megawatt deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We know that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were not given any information on the 2000 deal, but I will guarantee you Hydro-Quebec knew all about it, though, didn't they?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the questions asked and the answers given. I ask all members to show respect to those who have been recognized by the Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier will not answer to the people of this Province because she wants to hide this deal inside the walls of Nalcor, and for what, Premier? The money is coming out of the people's pockets in this Province. Why do you want to preside over a secret deal?

You are shutting out the Auditor General, you are controlling the Public Utilities Board process, and you are shutting it down under freedom of information and none of it is going to public tender. It is completely secretive.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, she is working with her friend that she appointed to the PUB, Mr. Andy Wells, to ensure that this project is compared to only two other options in the Province. The options are the ones she chose. One of them is actually building a transmission line to Nova Scotia and buying power from the Maritimes to replace Holyrood.

So I ask you, Premier –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask you, Premier: Why are you stacking the odds in favour of Muskrat by making the Public Utilities Board examine alternatives that are not realistic, like buying power from Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these people sat in a government that threw the Auditor General out of the House of Assembly, and you have the nerve to come back and make accusatory remarks against this government.

Mr. Speaker, we have provided every piece of information other than the commercially sensitive information, not only to the members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, but to the people of the Province. We have done it through our Web sites here in government and through Nalcor. We have done it through a series of public information sessions and open houses in Labrador and here on the Island. Mr. Speaker, we have informed the different caucuses of the federal government. Mr. Speaker, we have endorsements from the Board of Trade, from the Federation of Labour, from all three leaders in the last federal election. We are putting the strategic question, the fundamental question for review to the PUB, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier today is throwing out the Auditor General, she is throwing out the Public Utilities Board as we see it, Mr. Speaker, and she is throwing out every public process around Muskrat Falls because she does not want the people of this Province to realize that their light bills are going to double. They are going to pay the price at the end of the day while Emera and Nalcor earn a profit.

Mr. Speaker, one of the options that the Premier is not looking at and is not being looked at by Nalcor is the excess power that is available from Churchill Falls. According to some experts, including former board members of Newfoundland Hydro, we could buy any power we need for a small fraction of what it will cost to build Muskrat.

Premier, why do you not place the so-called section 92A option before the Public Utilities Board for its consideration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, they did not pay any more attention to information when they were government than they pay to it today. That is what her question indicates.

Mr. Speaker, there have been over twenty opinions given on 92A over the last twenty years and none of them recommend that we take the action she is recommending. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are charged with protecting the best interest of the people of this Province. They did not act on 92A for the same reasons that we do not act on 92A, Mr. Speaker. We have over twenty different opinions on 92A, opinions that you concurred with obviously given that you did not act at the time. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about do not do what we did, do as we say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier is prepared to look at real options here, why not look at all the options? Why not refer it to the Public Utilities Board? Why not let the people of the Province actually see what 92A involves? Is there a way that we can recall that power, Mr. Speaker, for domestic use in Newfoundland and Labrador and do so at a lot cheaper rate saving the people of this Province money for generations to come? Why will you not do it, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, 92A would open the Province to all kinds of liabilities, were we to move on 92A. All of the opinions we have, many of them that at least your colleague and former Minister of Justice should be very familiar with.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on top of that there are 250 –

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - 250 megawatts of power in recall power available to us seasonally out of Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, on top of that you have to layer on –

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - transmission; we have to build transmission. How are we going to get it to the Island? We have to build a subsea link; we have to build transmission all down across the Island. All of those options have been considered, Mr. Speaker, and it is not viable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We are going to get it but we have power that we can sell – $1.2 billion of it to Emera, Mr. Speaker, and at least another $1 billion of it to markets beyond Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, last month a group of people from the Port Union –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last month a group of people from the Port Union fish plant sat in the gallery and protested and listened to the Premier make a commitment to move forward on a proposal that would help these workers stabilize their lives after their plant was destroyed by hurricane Igor. A month has passed, Mr. Speaker, three ministers are working on the file and these workers have yet to hear what is in store for them.

I ask the Premier today: Can she update us on the status of the proposal that was put forward by the Port Union people?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, we did have the meetings with the people from Port Union. Since that time through Department of HRLE we have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: - we have mobilized people on the ground and we have had a follow-up meeting with the union. Mr. Speaker, as ministers and our staff we met yesterday. We are in the process now of setting up a follow-up meeting with the people of Port Union probably within the next week or so. We will be indicating to them a date very shortly, Mr. Speaker, to update them on where we are with the proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, their fear is that this plant will not open next year.

I ask the Premier or the minister if they have had a conversation with the owner of the Port Union plant, OCI, about the future of the processing facility. Have they gotten reassurances that this plant will open next year, or is this another case of a slow death of a fish plant in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we cannot prejudge what the company is going to do. They have not indicated one way or the other yet, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be a permanent closure.

Mr. Speaker, we will do our part as a government to support the workers there. We will enter into discussions, as we have already with the company. We will wait to see what the outcome is, but we cannot prejudge that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in last week's Fisheries Estimates, the minister stated that the Northern shrimp quota would not be as high as the interim cuts that were announced, which were at 40 per cent inshore and 10 per cent for the offshore fleet. In fact, the minister stated his understanding was that it would be somewhere between 10 per cent and 15 per cent.

I ask the minister today: Does he have any new information he can share with us on his proposed shrimp quota reduction? When does he expect a final decision will be coming down from the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, if we follow past policy of DFO, as I have indicated in this House, in the three years previous, two decisions were made in May and one was made in July. They always announce a preliminary number to get the season started.

Mr. Speaker, we are more than pleased this year with the shrimp fishery. This is the highest record price that has probably been ever seen in the shrimp industry. Things are underway. We are awaiting certain sectors, but, Mr. Speaker, this is going to prove to be a good year for the shrimp industry. We will await the final decisions. I am sure it will not be too much longer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

When questioned in this House last month, the Minister of Government Services confirmed that three Occupational Health and Safety officers in his department were being let go despite his department only being 50 per cent compliant with their own health and safety rules.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, in providing his answer, it was clear that the minister totally missed the point at the core of the issue as we asked about it. Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether those positions were temporary, as the minister said, it is that the work is not yet done, and there are no plans to finish it.

I ask the Minister of Government Services: Who is going to conduct hazard assessments of high-risk positions now that your OHS co-ordinators are gone?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to make reference to the three employees that the hon. member mentioned. These three people were hired on a temporary basis to help with a review of the Occupational Health and Safety affairs with the Department of Government Services; not only Government Services, but also the other social service departments within government.

Mr. Speaker, they were told at the beginning they would be hired for a three-year period. They were told again in January of this year that they would be terminated at the end of March this year, because the work they had been assigned to do would be completed at that time. The remainder of the work would be done by our own people within the department.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Province has a Provincial Wellness Plan, the links between wellness and disease prevention seem to be very weak at the departmental level. The wellness plan is supposed to be guided by principles of collaboration, but department officials told the Auditor General that chronic disease management and the Health and Promotion Wellness Division are not working together to achieve results.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is his department doing to improve this situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In the debate yesterday on the private member's motion, I referred to the quote from the World Health Organization on the importance of prevention in reducing chronic diseases such as diabetes. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to obviously distinguish between treatment for type 1 diabetes and the prevention of type 2 diabetes.

Mr. Speaker, this government, we have invested this year alone, $700,000 in Wellness Grants; grants that are going to youth groups, grants that are going to seniors groups, grants that are going to community groups, to encourage physical activity, to encourage healthy eating, to encourage education and awareness.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have recently established a chronic disease control division within our Department of Health and Community Services. As I indicated yesterday, the strategy will be forthcoming in the near future. As I talked about yesterday, we have also the insulin pumps for young people up to age twenty-five in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and also $75,000 to the Canadian Diabetes Association (inaudible).

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 have to take it from the minister's answer, that at this moment the department is not doing anything to make sure that these two groups, the chronic disease management and the Health Promotion and Wellness Division, work together, as they indicated to the Auditor General they are not doing. So, Mr. Speaker, let's try another one.

Insulin pumps have greatly helped people who cannot control their diabetes. According to Eastern Health, people who need insulin pumps require a lot of the resources available under the diabetes education program. Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health does not have enough diabetes nurses trained to help new pump users. Nursing resources are stretched, in terms of taking on new diabetes patients and new pump users.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is his department doing to help authorities attract and train more nurses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, this is what this government is doing: $2.3 billion investment in health care this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: This year alone, this government will spend $140 million in infrastructure in health care, Mr. Speaker, a lot of it in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Eastern Health has over 10,000 employees with a $1 billion budget. What we are doing is we are increasing awareness in education by funding community groups; we are funding the regional health authorities.

Let's talk about insulin pumps again for a second, Mr. Speaker. We have, right now, increased insulin pump coverage to age twenty-five. We started out in 2007, up to age eighteen and in Budget 2010, up to age twenty-five. Mr. Speaker, this government is investing strategically in our health care system and realizing that prevention is a key factor.

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.

Once again, I did not get an answer to the question. He did not deal with the fact that new pump users cannot occur if we do not have nurses to do the training with them, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, another question, there are four fairly simple and straightforward tests that people at risk of diabetes should have regularly to maintain good health, but in 2009 only 21 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians received them.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: What is his department doing to work with the health authorities to ensure that everyone at risk of diabetes gets these tests on a regular basis? It is part of management of the disease, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's talk about nurses for a second, Mr. Speaker. We currently have, in this Province, 6,060 registered nurses, the highest number of nurses we have ever had. Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2011, there were 22.5 new nursing positions announced. In 2010, 86 per cent of our new graduates were hired by the provincial regional health authorities. Currently, 171 of 189 students who will graduate this year, 90 per cent, have been recruited in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: With all of these nurses out there, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly talk to Ms Kaminski and see if we can make sure that the nurses are in their proper positions. Mr. Speaker, one thing again we have done, we have made our doctors happy and we have made our nurses happy with very fair and equitable compensation packages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matters referred to them and have passed without amendment the Estimates of the following departments and offices: the Department of Transportation and Works; the Department of Finance; Public Service Commission; Office of the Chief Information Officer; the Department of Government Services; the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat; and Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and thank the Committee members: MHA, Port de Grave, Vice Chair; MHA, St. John's East; MHA, The Straits & White Bay North; MHA, Kilbride; MHA, Bay of Islands; MHA, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; MHA, Burgeo & La Poile; and MHA, Baie Verte-Springdale.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further presentation of reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the Report of the Public Tender Act Exemptions for March 2011.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution:

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 provides that the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer be filled by resolution of the House of Assembly; and

WHEREAS subsection 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act provides that a Commissioner for Legislative Standards be appointed by the House of Assembly on the motion of the Premier following consultation with the Leader of the Official Opposition and representatives of the other registered political parties having representation in the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Victor Powers be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, further notices of motion.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador with regard to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline to the Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway are unpaved, in deplorable condition and are no longer suitable and safe for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading or paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to provide additional funding for much-needed improvements to Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, I have been presenting this petition almost every day since the House of Assembly opened. The reason for that is because the road in that part of the Province is in an unacceptable condition for motorists to be travelling over.

Mr. Speaker, every day I am getting phone calls from all regions of Labrador from people who are using that road and taking them twice as long to navigate the road as what it would normally take. I am getting e-mails, I am getting stuff on Facebook, and I am getting everything, Mr. Speaker, from people using the road in that area of the Province.

I am soon going to put out a brochure with all of the numbers of the government members, Mr. Speaker, so that they can start calling them. It is ridiculous that people in this part of the Province, Mr. Speaker, should have to come to the government begging and begging and begging every single day for someone to address the need of their road.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to Cec Haire on CBC, he was tweeting this morning saying anyone out there travelling on the long weekend, if you do not see the lines painted on the road let us know. Well, Mr. Speaker, you will not see any lines painted on the road I can tell you going through my district and going into Happy Valley-Goose Bay because there is no pavement to put lines on. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. So you will not be getting any tweets I say to CBC about no lines on the road up there. Now you may be getting a lot of them about lines on the road, Mr. Speaker, on the Island because I have had three or four myself today –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - from people telling me about lines that are not painted –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - on the road on the Trans-Canada and in different areas across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is the long weekend and people in Labrador want to be able to get in their vehicle and drive out for the long weekend just like everyone else. They should be able to do so, Mr. Speaker, and be able to travel comfortably. They should at least have some crushed stone on that road up there, some top on it.

There are sections of the road, Mr. Speaker, that are ten years old – ten years. You know yourself, anyone in this House – anyone who has ever lived in an area with a gravel highway, Mr. Speaker, knows that after ten years you have to resurface that highway and you have to put crushed stone on it. That is all the people are asking. It is unfortunate that every single day I have to stand in my place to wait for a response from government to make a commitment to do that road in that part of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise to enter a petition in this House on behalf of the residents of La Poile and the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou and anyone else who might be travelling in our Province as tourists who from time to time, visit the South Coast, which many of them do. The petition reads, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom/waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry services may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHERAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors, and disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room/restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able to utilize such waiting area and washroom facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I actually have several e-mails from someone because I have entered this petition in this House several times and when I do of course it sparks more petitions from those particular residents and from that particular area. I have received e-mails from people in and around this Province who simply cannot believe that in this day and age an MHA is standing asking that a washroom be constructed by the Department of Transportation and Works, which operates the ferry system. They just cannot believe that we live in such Third World conditions here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If you get on the ferry to go to Bell Island, for example, and you have to use the washroom, you have washroom facilities available. You get on it to go to Fogo, you have them available. Thank God we have it now if you are going to Grey River or Ramea but only due to seventy-one petitions that were brought forward in this House, until the minister became tired of hearing from me. He put one down in Burgeo just to shut me up basically, Mr. Speaker. I hope he shuts me up again, because it is direly needed. Surely, he can find enough money to put a washroom facility there next and adjacent to the ferry so that people who are waiting for the ferry in all kinds of weather, all through the year, will have the basic human needs satisfied, that you can go to a washroom rather than have to go up behind a rock or behind the old fish plant that is there. It is absolutely degrading, dehumanizing and not necessary. It should not be in what we today are referring to as a have Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in the District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed last summer and did not reopen in the fall; and

WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of Twillingate and New World Island; and

WHEREAS the shortage of acute care beds is resulting in people being denied admittance to the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS the people of Twillingate, New World Island do not want to see their health care services cut;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the five acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

Mr. Speaker, the situation here in this particular area is really unfortunate. These people were used to having a number of beds in the acute care centre at Notre Dame Bay Memorial Health Centre in Twillingate. There was a need in that facility obviously for restorative care beds. There was a request that went into government to have those restorative care beds added to the Twillingate hospital.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what government did is back last summer they closed down five of the acute care beds in the region. They closed them for the summer with a commitment to reopen them in the fall, but they did not reopen them in the fall. In fact, what they did is they reallocated them from acute care beds to restorative care beds in the same facility.

Then what happened is the minister and the member for the area, the MHA, went out there, Mr. Speaker, and had a press conference and said that we are going to add five restorative care beds to the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Health Centre. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what they were doing is they were taking out five acute care beds, beds that people were using every day for emergencies, beds that people were using every day for normal procedures. They took those beds out of the facility and reclassified them as restorative care beds.

That was supposed to be a good announcement for the people in that area. Well, it was not a good announcement. That is why thousands of people have signed these petitions, petitions that are still coming into my office, Mr. Speaker, from people out there who are signing these petitions because they are not happy. They are not happy with the fact that their member presided over this and did not consult with them, but, in fact, took beds out of their hospital without their knowledge. They are not happy and they are asking the government to reinstate them.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present another petition, particularly for the members of my own district.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of the Northeast Coast feel that due to high winds and stormy seas during the months of December through February; and

WHEREAS during the last number of years we are able to do little or no hunting during these months; and

WHEREAS there is an abundance of eider ducks in the last few years; and

WHEREAS eider ducks will not nest until mid-May;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to extend the hunting of eider ducks until March 10 during these designated hunting seasons.

As in duty bound, your petitioners ever humbly pray.

Mr. Speaker, this may not seem earth-shattering to some members of the House of Assembly this afternoon, but it is an important petition that I bring forward in several ways. I realize the actual hunting season is something that is set by Environment Canada, I believe it is. Mr. Speaker, I would call upon the Department of Justice, with Intergovernmental Affairs, to make representation on behalf of the members who have signed.

I have the signatures of about 800 or so people. Many of the people are involved in the eider duck hunt. The fact that the season is closing so prematurely, in terms of weather, it really jeopardizes the opportunity for them to participate, first of all, in something that has been a tradition for them for many years. It is a means of food for them.

Mr. Speaker, my concern would be one of safety. I live in the area and we know along the Northeast Coast that December, January, and February are certainly not good months to be on the water in smaller speedboats in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to stand and present this. I would ask government to look at it seriously and to do anything they can do to see that the request of the petitioners is granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to begin the Orders of the Day, on the Order Paper we will first do the third reading of the three bills that are ready for that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, be now read a time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 21)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 29 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that this bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000". (Bill 31)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is Bill 31, which is the child care tax credit, which received approval in principle from hon. members in this House. Since then, we have been advised by the Canada Revenue Agency - this particular bill gives a tax credit for child care expenses over and above or in addition to the deduction that taxpayers both federally and provincially get from eligible child care expenses. We asked the Canada Revenue Agency, which collects and administers our taxes under the Income Tax Act, if they would review the legislation and they finally did that. They have recommended that we make an amendment.

I want to move an amendment to Bill 31, seconded by the Minister of Justice, that clause 2 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefore: that subsection 23(2) of the act is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (b.2) the following: (b.3) section 17.2. This amendment would amend the bill to more accurately reflect the order in which the credit is referred to in section 17.2 is to be applied.

Now, Mr. Chair, for the benefit of members, and I advised both the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP early this morning of this amendment. This is a tax credit, and I understand in the Income Tax Act that the tax credits are ordered and that some of the tax credits like the new child care tax credit are only available in the year that the expense is incurred by the taxpayer. If they are not taken advantage of that year, they are lost and therefore cannot be claimed. There are other tax credits which can be transferred or carried over to following years.

To maximize the effectiveness of the child care tax credit, it would be better if that credit was put before some of the transferrable credits. In particular, the Canada Revenue Agency has recommended that the new section 17.2, which is the child care tax credit that we passed in this House yesterday, be reflected as a new paragraph (b.3) in subsection 23(2) rather than as (h.1) as drafted.

By claiming the child care tax credit before the medical expense amount credit, a taxpayer who will be entitled to claim both will have greater flexibility in choosing his or her twelve-month period ending in the year for purposes of claiming medical expenses. So it would be a benefit to the people of the Province. As seconded by the Minister of Justice, I recommend that the act be amended accordingly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will take just a moment to speak to the change that the minister has referred to. Again, the child care tax credit is a good thing. Child care, as we know, is very expensive for those who require it. Being able to take advantage of a tax credit is certainly important to the families who are involved in child care day-to-day for their young families.

It would be important that they can utilize or take advantage of that child tax credit in its best form I would say, Mr. Chair. This problem that has been identified, as the Minister of Finance has mentioned, is one whereby it needs to be amended so that it can be utilized in its best way.

The draft of Bill 31 to implement the Budget in 2011 for the child tax credit was prepared over a particular period of time. Before final direction was given or it was received, the review from CRA was necessary. Again, it suggested that this amendment would take place.

It is certainly important that CRA would do their analysis, do their review, and give their approval to anything in terms of a tax credit, Mr. Chair, because obviously to implement a legislation that does not agree with the federal legislation that would govern and allow that type of credit federally, obviously would be an exercise with no purpose. The outcome would not be what we might like it to be.

It is, as the minister stated, one that cannot be carried over from one year to the next. We know there are several types of tax credits that can be carried from one year to the next. Some of them can be carried for a number of years, but this is one of those tax credits that either you use it or you lose it kind of thing. If they are incurred by the taxpayer in a particular year, then it is in that year they have to be claimed. If they are not claimed then they are effectively lost. It is important that it is done properly and that people are able to take advantage of it.

As the briefing note suggests on the change, just by shifting it in terms of its sequence and putting it prior to other types of medical expenses, it gives it more flexibility. It gives it an opportunity to be used to more advantage to the taxpayer. Certainly any time the taxpayer has an opportunity to take advantage of a tax break or a tax credit, they want to be able to utilize that in the best way possible.

This is just a quick change, Mr. Chair, and certainly we will be supporting that change. It is good to be able to speak to it just for a minute or two this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CLERK: The amendment.

CHAIR: I am sorry.

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 31.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 31 and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

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

The Committee of the Whole has asked me to report Bill 31 with some amendments and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bill 31 with an amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, assuming we can do two stages of any bill on any given day, I will proceed to third reading of Bill 31.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 31 be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe I can ask the hon. the Government House Leader to proceed with the reading of the amendments to Bill 31 before we move to go to third reading, since the amendments have to be read the first and second time as well.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the amendments be now read the first time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of the amendments.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the amendments be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the said amendments to Bill 31 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 31, as amended, be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, amendment read a first and second time. Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess for the second time I will say: I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 31 be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 31 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now want to call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4 is a resolution put forward by the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board the following motion:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice on September 30, 2010; and

WHEREAS the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal was tabled in this hon. House earlier; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under section 28.2 of the act to approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of it being tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to accept the recommendations of the tribunal as contained in this report of September 30, 2010;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce this motion, the resolution adopting the recommendations of the 2010 Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal. The tribunal process is set out in the Provincial Court Act and has been articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in a series of judgements concerning judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker, the independence of the judiciary from the Executive and the Legislative Branches is a cornerstone of our system and, by extension, is the cornerstone of our democracy itself. Judicial independence is enhanced when judges are seen to be deciding their cases free of economic and political influence. Financial security therefore demands, Mr. Speaker, that the process of determining judicial compensation be depoliticized, be fair and be transparent. This means that there must be an independent body established to determine the appropriate salary and benefits for judges, and in this Province, that is known as the Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, this whole resolution today is presented in the context of judicial independence. I want to say a few words about judicial independence to set the necessary backdrop to the recommendations of this tribunal. There are three aspects to judicial independence. First, there is the security of tenure. Under the Provincial Court Act, 1991, a judge is appointed for good behaviour, and a judge cannot be removed from office except by an independent body known as the adjudication tribunal. That is a tribunal established under the Provincial Court Act. There is a complaints system in place under that act to receive complaints, and there is an adjudication panel established under that act, which makes decisions with regard to judges being removed from office.

The second aspect of judicial independence, Mr. Speaker, is administrative independence. That means that within his courtroom, or her courtroom, it is the judge who manages and controls what happens with respect to matters that come before him. In other words, he is in charge of his own courtroom and matters affecting the exercise of his function in that courtroom. So there is an administrative component to judicial independence as well.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, of course, there is financial independence, which is what brings us to this point today. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case known as the PEI Reference case, established the groundwork and the ground rules for establishing compensation benefits in the context of judicial independence. The issues of judicial independence and judicial remuneration are considered, Mr. Speaker, in the context of the Charter of Rights, Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That issue was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in a leading decision, seminal case known as the PEI Reference case, decided in 1997. There were four appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada in that reference case, Mr. Speaker, and that case decided whether and how the guarantee of judicial independence in Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms restricts the manner and the extent to which provincial governments and Legislatures can reduce the salaries of provincial court judges.

Chief Justice Antonio Lamer presided over that case, Mr. Speaker, and he declared that there was an institutional dimension to judicial independence. He said that institutional dimension of financial security had three components. To avoid the possibility or the appearance of any political interference through economic manipulation, a body, such as a commission, or in this case a tribunal, must be interposed between the judiciary and other levels of government. The constitutional function of this body would be to depoliticize the process of determining changes to or freezing or increasing judicial remuneration. That is the purpose and the backdrop of the tribunal and the report we present today.

That case, Mr. Speaker, also determined that the tribunal established must be independent, it must be effective, and it must be objective. Any change to judicial compensation or remuneration without recourse to such an independent commission or tribunal is unconstitutional.

The second institutional dimension of financial security that Chief Justice Lamer laid down is that under no circumstances is it permissible for the judiciary, not only collectively but individually, to engage in any negotiations over remuneration with the executive or representatives of the Legislature. Any such negotiation would be fundamentally at odds with judicial independence.

Thirdly, and finally, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada in that case determined that any reduction to judicial remuneration cannot take those salaries below a basic minimal level of remuneration which is required for the office of a judge. The Supreme Court stated that public confidence in the independence of the judiciary would be undermined if judges were paid at such a low rate that they could be perceived as susceptible to political pressure through economic manipulation.

Mr. Speaker, the decision in that case has been confirmed in a number of follow-up cases. Again, by the Supreme Court in the Bodner Decision in 2005 when the Supreme Court of Canada again stated, as a matter of general principle, that "Judicial salaries can be maintained or changed only by recourse through a commission that is independent, objective and effective."

Mr. Speaker, there have been five tribunals in the history of this Province. The first tribunal was called the Whelan Tribunal, which commenced in 1991 and delivered its report in 1992. The tribunal makes recommendations based on a four-year period and that tribunal made recommendations from 1992 to 1996. These recommendations, Mr. Speaker, were deferred at the time because of the public sector restraint legislation of the government of the day.

In 1996, the next tribunal was the Roberts Tribunal, which reported in 1997. Mr. Speaker, following the PEI Reference case which came down in 1998, the Provincial Court judge in this Province commenced a challenge against the government's decision not to implement the Whelan Tribunal. Our Court of Appeal declared at that time, in the fall of 2000, that the Roberts Tribunal was a nullity and ordered the implementation of the Whelan report.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2001, the government appointed the Hoegg Tribunal to make recommendations as to salary, compensation and benefits for judges for the years 1996 to 2000. The Hoegg Tribunal reported later that year and the government introduced a resolution which varied the salary recommendation of the Hoegg Tribunal. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ordered the implementation of that tribunal's salary recommendations following application by the judges seeking a review of the government's decision. In other words, the government did not implement - or varied the recommendation of the Hoegg Tribunal. That was challenged by the judges in the Supreme Court after which the Supreme Court ordered that the recommendations of the tribunal be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, the Steele Tribunal was appointed in 2005 to make recommendations to government for the four fiscal years from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009. That report was presented to government in May, 2006. All of its recommendations, Mr. Speaker, were implemented by the government.

Which brings us, Mr. Speaker, to the latest tribunal; in December, 2009, a tribunal consisting of Mr. Lewis Andrews Q.C., Mr. David Norris and Mr. John Clarke were appointed to make recommendations for the four-year period from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013. Mr. Andrews was the tribunal chair, Mr. Norris was the appointee of the government, and John Clarke, a lawyer, was the appointee of the judges.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Andrews had been a practising lawyer in this Province since 1974 with the firm of Stewart McKelvey. Through his entire career, he was a bencher of the Law Society of Newfoundland and served the treasury of the Law Society in 1988 and 1989.

Mr. Clarke has been a member of the Law Society as well since 1979. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree from Memorial University and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Saskatchewan. He now practices as an arbitrator, a mediator with the Centre for Innovative Dispute Resolution, of which he is the founding principal.

David Norris, Mr. Speaker, was the government's appointee on that tribunal. He is currently a financial management consultant as well as a corporate director of Fortis Inc. and Fortis Properties corporations. He was appointed to the Board of Directors of Newfoundland Power in 2003. From the period of 1984 to 2001, he was an Executive Vice President of Finance of Fishery Products. In 1969 to 1984, he was employed in the provincial public service of Newfoundland and Labrador serving in a number of positions, including the Deputy Minister of Finance and Secretary to Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, a very qualified, eminent tribunal has presented this report. Both parties provided written submissions, both the judges and the government. Both were represented by legal representation and provided submissions. Public hearings were held by the tribunal in April, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the tribunal provided its report to the government on September 30, 2010. This House, some members may remember, we amended section 28 of the Provincial Court Act to allow the tribunal to present its report later than the act prescribed, because the act prescribed that the report had to be in by March 30. It was very evident from the beginning that was not possible in this case, so the act was amended in the last session of the House to delay the report to the end of September.

The tribunal has provided its report, Mr. Speaker. The government is now pleased today to introduce this resolution implementing the recommendations of the tribunal. The recommendations, Mr. Speaker, have to do with judges' salaries, they have to do with a salary differential for the chief judge and the associate chief judge, a recommendation on vacation, one on sick leave, one on the parental and maternal leave, a recommendation on judicial identification, and a recommendation of cost.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, both parties would have made recommendations on all of these things, and the panel would have considered the recommendations of both sides, much as does a judge in a trial. You hear both sides before the tribunal makes its recommendation.

The fact is that the tribunal would have considered, obviously, the protection of judicial independence and the public interest in the administration of justice. The panel would have considered the nature and importance of the work performed by judges, and their unique role and responsibility in our society. They would have considered the need to attract and motivate and retain the most highly qualified candidates from all areas of practice. They would have considered the increase to the cost of living. They would have considered how the salary compares with other relevant groups in society, and other judges across the country, the fiscal capacity of government, in light of the current economic conditions, and the precedents that were set by recommendations by previous tribunals.

Based on that, Mr. Speaker, the tribunal made the following recommendations. The first recommendation is the recommendation on a judge's salary. With respect to Provincial Court judges' salaries, the tribunal has recommended and increase of 11.5 per cent for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. This means that effective the first of April, 2009, a Provincial Court judge's salary will be $197,425, bringing this Province's judges into approximate parity with the other Atlantic Provinces' judges. The tribunal has further recommended 3 per cent increases for the following three fiscal years, ending in 2013. So, Mr. Speaker, the compounded increase, then, over the four years, 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, is 21.8 per cent. This is comparable to the 21.5 per cent, compounded, given to the civil service in the current collective agreement.

With regard to salary differentials, in this Province we have twenty-three Provincial Court judges. One is designated Chief Judge, and another is designated the Associate Chief Judge, and in recognition of their administrative duties, the tribunal has recommended that the Chief Judge receive an additional 8 per cent over his salary, and that the Associate Chief Judge receive an additional 4 per cent as compensation. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a slight increase from what the previous tribunal recommended, but it brings the salary differentials for the Chief Judge and the Associate Chief Judge of this Province in line with the other Atlantic Provinces. Both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia pay their Chief Provincial Court Judge an 8 per cent pay differential. Nova Scotia pays a 5 per cent differential to an Associate Chief Judge; New Brunswick provides a 4 per cent differential to an Associate Chief Judge. Prince Edward Island has only three provincial court judges and they pay its Chief Judge a fixed differential of $5,000.

The third recommendation, Mr. Speaker, had to do with annual leave. The tribunal has recommended increasing annual leave from twenty-five to thirty days a year. The tribunal reviewed all the other provinces in Canada and every other province, Mr. Speaker, offered at least five more days of annual leave then our provincial court judges had.

The fourth recommendation, Mr. Speaker, had to do with sick leave accumulation. A judge in this Province is presently entitled to take sick leave of up to six months and upon returning to work that judge is then eligible to take a further six-month sick leave. The tribunal, Mr. Speaker, after hearing the presentation by both sides and examining the jurisdictions across the country, has recommended that the judges should accumulate sick leave at a rate of one and a quarter days a month to a maximum of 240 days. The tribunal has also recommended, Mr. Speaker, that judges are entitled to an advance of up to 130 days sick leave in the event they are ill before they have accumulated sufficient sick leave.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just comment on that for a moment, the tribunal regards judges' circumstances as being different from those generally prevalent throughout the public service. Judges of necessity joined the bench at an advanced age in their careers and in so doing they must sever previous employment arrangements, sever their client relationships, business affiliations, particularly potentially significant change of lifestyle with little prospect of turning back. The tribunal is of the view, Mr. Speaker, that it is unreasonable to expect an individual to make such a fundamental change in career direction and lifestyle and then face the possibility that an unforeseen illness shortly after joining the bench could leave him or her seriously exposed financially. Indeed, such potential exposure might deter some from choosing to join the bench in the first place. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, for the tribunal's decision on its upfront availability of benefits of 130 sick leave days.

Mr. Speaker, the tribunal feels that this upfront accommodation is imperative. The advance would be reduced, of course, and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of the service credits under the previous section of this recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to maternal leave and parental leave, judges, unlike the public service or other employees, are unable to contribute to Employment Insurance. It is Employment Insurance which, for the most part, provides parental leave benefits to eligible employees; judges cannot do that.

Provinces such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia now provide some form of maternal or paternal leave benefits for their Provincial Court judges. The 2010 tribunal has recommended that judges who are birth mothers receive two-thirds of their salary for a period of seventeen weeks. The tribunal further recommends that all judges, male or female, should be entitled to take a further thirty-five weeks of unpaid parental leave during which their benefits can continue.

Mr. Speaker, recommendation six was one of the issues which were raised before the Steele Tribunal, from the previous tribunal which was not resolved under that tribunal, and that concerns judicial indemnification. This is indemnity policy for legal costs incurred by judges in certain circumstances, quite unlike an indemnity policy currently in place for the public service. The 2010 tribunal has recommended the creation of an indemnity policy for legal costs incurred by judges in action arising in the course of their judicial duties. There is no indemnity for judges for action as a private citizen or for any action that occurred prior to his appointment of judge.

With regard to this recommendation, Mr. Speaker, the judge can select the counsel and the Province will pay reasonable fees and costs of the legal action. That cost, that fee, would be subject to taxation by a retired Supreme Court justice. In order words, there would be an independent assessment done of the bill for legal costs.

The last recommendation deals with the issue of cost, a separate issue, the costs of the tribunal and the judges' presentation to this tribunal. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier in my remarks, the principle driving the whole tribunal process is the constitutional issue of judicial independence and because of the importance of judicial independence through the proper functioning of the legal system and democracy, typically, judges will not be expected to bear all the costs associated with their representation before the tribunal.

So, the 2010 tribunal has recommended that the Province pay the representational costs incurred by the Provincial Court judges in relation to the submissions that they made to the tribunal, to a maximum of $75,000. The legal costs of the judges in appearing before this tribunal, presenting their case, and making their case to the tribunal, the tribunal has recommended that the Province pick up the costs of that to a maximum of $75,000. This recommendation is consistent with previous tribunals in this Province, and tribunals in other provinces as well.

Mr. Speaker, these are seven recommendations made by this tribunal. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, if I did not acknowledge on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the House of Assembly, the vital role played by the Provincial Court and the Provincial Court judges in this Province. We all recognize the importance of judicial independence, and we acknowledge the role of the 2010 Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal in this regard, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the resolution and the seven recommendations set out by the 2010 Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal, and I look forward to quick passage of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak to the motion that has been put forward by the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, the motion, as you can see, is dealing with the judges' salaries and benefits in the Province, and it is dealing with the tribunal that was actually completed in which, I think, there was a three-member tribunal that was set up: a representative from the justice system, normally a representative from government, and a person who is appointed jointly between both of them. What they do is they look at the salaries and benefits of all the judges in the Province and then they make recommendations to the government. Government, then, Mr. Speaker, has to bring those recommendations to the House of Assembly in the form of a motion that we see today and have it ratified in order for the recommendations to be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, we were one of the last provinces, I would think, in Canada that brought in the tribunal system for judges. Ironically, I think it was Clyde Wells, when he was Premier, who was one of the ones who was very vocal in trying to shut out a tribunal process in Newfoundland and Labrador simply because he felt at the time that judges were being paid enough, Mr. Speaker, and a tribunal meant that government was tied to those recommendations and they would have to pass them. At a time when a lot of the public service was going with wage freezes, having a tribunal for the justice system for judges meant that government would be bound by those recommendations. Anyway, I remember back in those days there was a lot of hype about it; it was a very public issue. Ironically, it was Premier Clyde Wells, former Premier, who went on to be the chief justice of the Province. It is ironic how that happened.

Mr. Speaker, it was in 1997 when there was a Supreme Court case in PEI. The case was known as the PEI Judges Reference case. It pointed out at that time the constitutional standards that were affecting judges. That is what led to legislation being passed in nearly every province and every Territory across Canada that would deal with remuneration and compensation for all of these judges. We became bound by that Supreme Court decision and that was when Premier Wells had no other choice only bring in the system of a tribunal.

The report that was submitted to the minister in September of this year by that particular tribunal was made with respect to salaries, to judges' pensions, their vacation time, maternity leave, sick leave and some other items. There were a number of critical factors which we need to keep in mind in weighing out the compensation for judges.

First of all, it includes our constitutional requirement. Like I just said, it is not optional. In terms of saying we are going to give all of the public service in the Province a raise of 2 per cent, and that might be what the Province would submit to the tribunal for judges, but if they submit they think it should be 10 per cent, then oftentimes it will end up somewhere in the middle. It is a constitutional requirement, and we are really tied to whatever that recommendation is.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the need to maintain independence amongst the judiciary system. That was one of the key reasons to have all of these salaries and benefits set for judges through a tribunal process, is because they wanted to be kept independent. They did not want it to be necessarily dictated by government or influenced by government or some conflict that may be ongoing between the judiciary system and the government of the day. The independence piece was one of the key pieces the Supreme Court looked at when they made that particular ruling.

The other thing was the need to attract excellent candidates, to attract people to the role of a judge in this Province, and to also look at what the unique nature of a judge is, Mr. Speaker, and the role they play in our system. We need to be mindful of how compensation in our jurisdiction compares to other jurisdictions. That is one of the things the tribunal does take into consideration when they are reviewing what judges should be paid and what their benefits are. They do look at what the process is right across Canada, what is happening in other provinces, and they make that comparison to Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of establishing what is fair benefits.

They also look at the cost of living in the Province. They look at whether the cost of living is going up, stabilizing, or staying down. They use that as well as a measure to determine what the compensation should be. They look at what is fair and reasonable in terms of the economic situation in the Province. For example, if we were a Province where our annual revenues were declining and we were going through an economic recession, obviously, that would impact how the tribunal would look at the rates and salaries and benefits for judges. If it is a time when the economy is growing, it is a time when we are stably growing, I should say, and we are not dealing with any economic threat to the people of the Province, then, Mr. Speaker, it would be obviously a different determination in terms of what is fair and reasonable.

The other thing they look at is the nature of the particular judge's jurisdiction and the responsibility of that particular court. For example, Mr. Speaker, we have some judges who work in our court system right here in the capital city in Provincial Court. We have judges who work in areas like Corner Brook, for example, where they might deal with a broader range of cases. They might deal with many more clients.

Mr. Speaker, we have judges in Provincial Courts, like in Labrador, where they do what is called the circuit court. I know they do that in Corner Brook as well. They do what is called the circuit court. They go into communities. Maybe they will go into Rocky Harbour, or they will go into Hawke's Bay, or maybe they will go into Port Hope Simpson or Nain, and they will have what is called a circuit court.

The responsibilities vary with the jurisdiction that you serve in as a court judge in this Province. The role of judges in St. John's may be somewhat different; the scope may be somewhat different and the caseload may be somewhat different than what you are going to find in a judge that might be based in Corner Brook or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So, Mr. Speaker, those things are taken into consideration as well when the tribunal is doing their review of what is fair and what is reasonable in terms of remuneration and compensation for judges in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the most contentious issue I would say that was at hand in this particular report that was just completed is the question of salary. I think the two most important factors that we have to consider are the Constitution of Canada and the need to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

In the PEI reference case, the Supreme Court identified three characteristics that were critical to a judge's pay. First of all, Mr. Speaker, they identified that when you are setting a salary for a judge you need to consider financial security, the security of the tenure, and the administrative independence. Those were three things that they were asked to look at through that Supreme Court decision when it came to setting what the pay would be for judges. They felt that these factors were key to helping ensure judges are free of temptation from corrupt economic pressure. The underpinning of a free and democratic society is having an independent judiciary. I think we all recognize and realize that, and that is what separates the legislative and judicial arms of government today.

Mr. Speaker, a judge's capacity to render such decisions based on the facts presented must therefore be untainted. What they say is when you set the salary for a judge in this Province, you need to consider the financial security that the judge will have, you need to look at what the security of the tenure will be, and look at administrative independence.

They want to make sure all judges are going to be free from temptation from any of the economic pressures that might be out there facing us in society, Mr. Speaker. In other words, they do not want our judges to get their hands dirty, so they make sure they can afford them some financial freedom, Mr. Speaker. It is very important because they are the independent body, they are the body that has to preside over and make decisions in this Province on some very important legal matters. Therefore, they need to be untainted. We cannot have judges on the bench that have been tainted. Therefore, there are some protection clauses that are always built-in and one of those protection clauses is in terms of salary in ensuring that the salary is fair, Mr. Speaker.

In determining judges' salary the government must consider, as I said, what the economic conditions are. This can be by looking at what the GDP is, or whether it is growing or going down. It can be by looking at employment growth, looking at the unemployment rate, retail sales, inflation, housing starts – all of these things, Mr. Speaker, are considered.

They look at things like the oil revenue we have that currently drives the government's Budget every year and now provides, Mr. Speaker, for 30 per cent of all the money that we spend in the Province as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So those things are considered. They consider what the unemployment rate is and if the unemployment rate is going down or going up. The reason is because that often reflects on the crime, it reflects on the number of cases that judges may often have to deal with. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things that they look at when they set the salary, the benefits for judges in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, from this particular report, and I think the minister outlined some of this in his comments, it looks like the current base salary for judges today is $177,063. The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court judges association was proposing a base salary of $203,662 which would mean an increase of about 15 per cent in these particular recommendations of the tribunal. The provincial government, Mr. Speaker, did go back and in the tribunal did agree that an 8 per cent increase would be fair, but of course the judges' association insisted on 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the 8 per cent was a fair offer by the government because it certainly reflected on what was happening with a lot of public sector groups out there, the kind of raises that they were seeing and it was very balanced in terms of across the board.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the tribunal, as I said, hit somewhere in the middle of that, and what they recommended is that the judges' salaries should be increased by 11.5 per cent. They also recommended that it be retroactive to April 1 of 2009. It is not just retroactive to April of this year or April of last year, but it is actually retroactive to April of 2009. Mr. Speaker, what you are actually seeing is an increase now of 11.5 per cent that will be retroactive, from what I can understand, for the past three years. I guess that means that there are some big cheques coming to some judges in the Province in the next little while because that is a pretty huge increase and when you are making it over that period of time, of course it all adds up.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, the result is today that once this bill is passed in the House of Assembly that starting April 1, I think it is this year, the judges will be getting a salary of $215,732 a year, almost $216,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, our judges are going to be well paid in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think they will be very happy with the salary that has been recommended for them, and that the House of Assembly will have to pass for them. It would be nice to be a judge today, I would say to the Minister of Justice, if you were going to get that kind of a salary and a bonus and an increase all coming to you at the one time.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I guess what the tribunal focused on is that our economy is growing. Our revenues are increasing. The flip side of that, of course, is when revenues start to decline and the economy may not be in such a stable position, I do not think the salaries of judges are going to decrease in the Province. It may not increase by 11.5 per cent during those days, but it certainly will not decrease.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the work of the tribunal is legislated in Newfoundland and Labrador. The recommendations that they bring forward to the House of Assembly, we are mandated to accept under our laws. Whether we think the raise is excessive or whether we do not, I guess that is the process that we have signed on to in this country and in the Province and there is very little that we can do about it at this stage as we are legislated by the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions, Mr. Speaker.

I also believe that any group, when they are being given raises in the Province, not only should be evaluated based on what the economic circumstances are in a Province but they should also be evaluated based on what the merit of their position is and what their contributions are to their particular workplace and to their career. So, I think there are a number of evaluation criteria that still could be considered.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would have to say to the minister - because I have no other choice, and we are bound by law - that we will support the motion and it will have to pass in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

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

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

I am happy to have a few minutes to speak to the motion regarding the report of the tribunal dealing with salaries and benefits of judges. The minister - and I thank him for it - gave a full explanation of the report of the tribunal and the Opposition Leader has also spoken in great detail to it. I do not intend to take a lot of time.

Obviously, I do believe the tribunal system is a good system. Having a tribunal that is a third party group that are objective and can take the representations both from the association of judges as well as from the government and a look at what they both are presenting with regard to where they think judges' salaries and benefits should go is a good system. There is no doubt about that.

As I look through the nine recommendations of the tribunal that deal with salary, pensions, sick leave, maternity leave, paternal leave, and vacation, obviously they have gone into all of the benefits that make up any workers' salaries, whether it is a judge, whether it is a Member of the House of Assembly, or whether it is a worker out in the private sector. One of the things I found good, of course, in going through the report, is the tribunal really did try to deal fairly with the positions that were being presented by the two, who were the important parties making presentations to them. They, in some cases, I suppose, did have to play the role of Solomon in determining where to go with recommendations. Being in the middle of negotiations around salary is not an easy one. As was said by the Leader of the Opposition, they sort of took a middle of the road approach to how to deal with the two differing positions presented to them with regard to salary. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, basically what we do here in the House of Assembly, because of legislation, is rubber stamp the recommendations of the tribunal.

I have to say, I think they do deal with something that is important, that we do not deal with here in the House of Assembly, and that is looking at sick leave for judges, and also looking at maternity and parental leave for judges. We started a process under the House Management Commission of trying to look at maternity and paternal leave for members of the House of Assembly, and we got nowhere, Mr. Speaker, simply because there were really no models for us to follow here in Canada. None of the Legislatures have dealt with this issue for its members, and there were very few Legislatures in the world that had dealt with it.

I am glad to see that judges have dealt with maternal and paternal leave. It is extremely important. I hope that someday there will be a way for us to deal with it for people who are in Legislatures. I hope the public would want us to do that as well, because I think it is important to recognize that people, whether they are in judicial positions or in elected positions like us in a Legislature, also get sick. We also are people who have children, and we have to look at that whole work, personal life balance. It is good to see the judges have it, Mr. Speaker. I hope someday, as I said, we can find a model, along with other Legislatures, because that was a decision, actually, of the House Management Commission, was to try to reach out to other Legislatures in Canada and see if we could come to some kind of way of working together to see how to deal with these issues. I am happy for the judges that they have it, and happy for them, as well, I am sure they are going to be content with the salary that has been recommended by the tribunal.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, there really is not much more to say, simply because of the fact that, as I said and has been said already, by Legislature, what we are doing here is accepting the report. We cannot reject it, we only accept it. As I said, in terms of the issues that are being dealt with, they certainly are issues that in justice and fairness any worker, whether it is somebody who is of the level of work of being in the judicature or whether it is a person working in the private sector, these are issues that should be part of everybody's benefits.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice speaks now he will close debate on the motion.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members opposite for their comments and for their support for this resolution. I just want to clear something up, I am not quite sure if I understood the hon. Opposition Leader with regard to the salaries. If I just could reiterate and explain. The previous tribunal reported on the salaries and the compensation benefits up to and including 2008. This tribunal, even though it is after the fact, now only reporting in – we are doing this in 2011. The report deals with this compensation package going back to April 1, 2009. A new tribunal will have to be put in place to deal with the numbers beginning in September, 2014.

The salary scale is effective back to April 1, 2009 at which the 11.5 per cent will be applied. That salary on April 1, 2009 will be $197,425. When you add on the 3 per cent for the next three years, Mr. Speaker, it is on April 1, 2012 that the salary will be up to $215,732. I am not sure if I have the figures right, but that is what they will be.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the hon. members for their comments and I now move this resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion adopted.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Previous to this, Mr. Speaker, we had started the debate on Bill 26. That debate had been in progress, so we will call that again now.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Speaker now leave the Chair for the House to resolve into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

This is a continuation of the debate on Bill 26 that was introduced by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board on April 18.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957". (Bill 26)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I stand to speak to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. I understand that the minister introduced the bill and spoke to it in Committee on a previous sitting of the House of Assembly.

So, Mr. Chair, just to outline what the bill is about, it says in the explanatory note that the bill "would amend the Schedule to The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 by adding the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited, a Crown corporation established in April 2005 to receive and invest the province's monthly allocation of funds received from participation in the Government of Canada's redesigned business immigration program. Money received from immigration investors is to be repaid by participating provincial funds after 5 years and each province provides a guarantee of repayment. This amendment to the Schedule to the Act secures the repayment of the total of the monthly allocations in the amount of $54,630,357 which were received by the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited during the fiscal year 2009-2010. This brings the total amount of allocations guaranteed by the province to $204,229,677 as at March 31, 2010."

Also, Mr. Chair, in the bill, as I said, the explanation is to add the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund to The Loan and Guarantee Act. It talks about adding it to the tune of $54,630,357 which would bring, Mr. Chair, the loan and guarantee allocations under this to $204,229,677.

Mr. Chair, oftentimes we hear of people talking about guaranteed loans, or loans and guarantees. It is not an unusual concept. We have heard it a lot, in fact, in the case of Muskrat Falls. There was a lot of debate out there about looking for loan guarantees. So, there is a difference between loans, guarantees, and loan guarantees. What we are seeing here is the commitment by the government to accept monies that would be transferred under a federal program to be used as part of the immigrant fund. That money, Mr. Chair, would also be paid back to the federal government over tenure. It talks about that in terms of the different dates, and the dates that are being used here is that the expiry date of the program which started in 2005 is from June 30, 2014 to May 31, 2015. That is the context of the expiry date.

Mr. Chair, there have been a number of discussions around the entire program, the Immigrant Investor Fund, in the Province. We know that this is money that goes to help people in the Province, especially immigrants, in terms of the money that they are bringing in for companies and Crown corporations. We have seen other programs established as well that have become more like loan guarantee programs, such as under aquaculture, there was a working capital fund that the government set up. Also, there was a Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program.

Anyway, the use of this is to provide financial assistance to the private sector, and that is money that is used to develop businesses and to be able to provide for further development. This program is a Government of Canada business program, as I said, business and immigration program, and what they are doing is they are lending money to us as a Province under the program, and they allocate it to different provinces all across Canada. Different amounts are allocated in different provinces as well. The money in our Province has been designated under what is called the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited, and that is a corporation. What we do is we promise to pay back the money. Basically, what the bill is saying is that the program that we have currently have, or as I understand it, the money will have to be paid back by the end of the program, which is in 2014 or 2015. So, Mr. Chair, I do not know if we pay any interest on that or how that works, but maybe the minister could explain that. Anyway, I think there is a period of time and we sign on to repay it within that period of time.

Mr. Chair, I am sure there are a number of things that the money is being used for in Newfoundland and Labrador for immigrant businesses, and some of them we have often heard about and seen that have started as a result of this. I am sure that there will be many more that will be started as a result of this. It is over $54 million under this particular fund, so it is a good program. It does provide for capital, especially for immigrant businesses that need it, to bring those businesses into our Province. It is really all about creating jobs. That is what it comes down to as the bottom line. It is about creating jobs. It is about creating opportunity. It is about bringing new money in, generating new money and capturing new ideas. Moving outside of what have been sometimes traditional industries into new industries, whether that be in information technology or be in some other kind of sector. A lot of these business we have seen, especially in the IT sector, in IT for the offshore industry, and IT developments in terms of oceanography and so on in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is a fair amount of money here when you are talking of $54 million to be spent over the next few years as a result of the federal business investment program and monies that we will borrow, we will give it out to corporations, they will look at starting businesses and repay that money but we also repay it back to the federal government. It is not a gift, we repay it back over a period of about five years.

Mr. Chair, that is the gist of the bill. We will just make those couple of comments and we will look forward to see that money put to good use in Newfoundland and Labrador to create jobs in different sectors and in different industries, and hopefully in different regions of the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak here this afternoon to Bill 26, the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. I would like to take this opportunity to speak about some of the investments that government has made in rural Newfoundland, particularly around resources, to go right into rural Newfoundland and to highlight how seriously we take rural Newfoundland and Labrador in this Province in terms of the investments that we have made.

Mr. Chair, it was only last night that myself and the Minister of Transportation and Works attended a joint council meeting in my district, in Trinity-Bay de Verde district. I am, sure as all members in this House would know, we have a lot of municipalities in our districts. Often, as I am sure is the case in other districts, they get together to form some form of joint committee to have an opportunity to bring their issues forward to the member for the particular area. It is always good for these municipalities when they have the opportunity to have ministers available to speak to specific issues in a particular department.

Last night, as I said, the Minister of Transportation and Works was there. Last month, Mr. Chair, we were very fortunate to have as well the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because being municipalities certainly they had a lot of questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As you know, a lot of the items that come up at joint council meetings like that would be: roads; water and sewer projects; things like Hurricane Igor, and support for that came up; JCP, Job Creation Partnerships; CEP, the Community Enhancement Program. Issues around fire trucks and other general infrastructure in the community are things that were on the agenda last night and last month.

Mr. Chair, last night was good in terms of timing for the meeting because it was following the Budget. We were able to reiterate, which we did not need to do in the case of last night because they were supportive of the initiatives we had in the Budget, particularly around the MOGs. As you know, in the Budget there have been increases for municipalities. For municipalities under 1,000 people, of which all of them are in my district, Mr. Chair, they received a 50 per cent increase in their municipal operating budget. Mr. Chair, that goes a very long way for municipalities, particularly the smaller ones, as I have said. In the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde alone, this equates to almost $200,000 in new funding in just MOGs alone going to the municipalities.

Mr. Chair, there are 271 municipalities in the Province. Of those that have populations of less than 1,000 which receive the 50 per cent increase, there are 209 municipalities. So, 209 out of 271 municipalities certainly received the larger bulk of the increase, the 50 per cent. As well, a 30 per cent increase went to municipalities with populations of 1,000 to 3,000 people, and we have forty-two out of the 271 municipalities in that vote. A 20 per cent increase to municipalities with populations of 3,000 to 7,000 people, and sixteen of the 271 municipalities are in that vote. Then there are nine municipalities that have over 7,000 in population, and they received a 10 per cent increase. So, Mr. Chair, this comes to a total of $4.6 million in this year's Budget that is money directly gone into the pockets of municipalities. It speaks to how we try to strengthen these communities, we try to diversify the communities, and we certainly try to make the communities more sustainable.

One of the things I have heard, particularly in my district, is waste management. Mr. Chair, in this Budget we also contributed $14 million to the Waste Management Strategy. I have to commend the communities in my district because we were one of the first areas in the Province to be really up and running, with all residents now bringing their waste to Robin Hood Bay. As you know, we have heard along the way that there were issues raised around cost. Some of the municipalities said to me: This MOG will go a long way in helping address the cost. We realize why this waste management needs to be done. Yes, certainly there were issues along the way, but we are really glad now that we are finally at a place where our environment is going to be much better. We thank you for the MOG.

Now, there are other municipalities that are not going to use it for waste management. Certainly, some will use it for renovations around their town council. Whatever the reason, Mr. Chair, it speaks to how we as a government support the municipalities, support them in terms of strengthening their financial position, and put them in a position to be more sustainable in the future.

Also at the meeting last night there was a lot of discussion around capital works and very pleased to see this year provincial funding of nearly $141 million for municipal infrastructure projects. When you combine that with the federal funding, that is about $219 million that will be going into capital works, Mr. Chair. It is really about setting priorities. Water and sewer is absolutely critical. Things like lift stations are absolutely critical. It is not to say that roads are not critical, Mr. Chair, but as a government we have to prioritize in everything we do.

While we do that very effectively on this side of the House, Mr. Chair, sometimes we see in the Opposition, particularly with the Leader of the NDP and all of the things that are asked there, prioritizing and budgeting is something that - really there is a lack of concept there for, because there has to be budgeting and there have to be priorities. As I explained to these municipalities, Mr. Chair, you have to tell me what your most important priorities are because we really cannot do it all, as we are often asked to do all the time.

Some of the other really good things that they thought were in the Budget, and as we know, in rural Newfoundland, and not only in rural Newfoundland and Labrador but throughout the Province, the fire departments are the backbone of the communities. Our firefighters and all of our volunteers are very valued. Mr. Chair, firefighters put their lives on the line when they go out to attend to a fire or an accident or whatever the case may be. They were very thrilled that government has put $1.4 million into the form of a tax credit for the volunteer firefighters, Mr. Chair. While it equates to a little under $300, it is the concept of what we have done for volunteers, and the value that we put on our volunteers, particularly the firefighters, as I said. They were so pleased to hear that.

We actually met with the firefighters association this year –Vince Mackenzie came in – and they talked about increasing the money for fire trucks and fire equipment. He did say to me on Budget day: I never even thought for the fire tax credit, because there were other things that we asked for, so it was a really welcome thing to see in the Budget. He was very pleased by that. As you know, with fourteen-fifteen municipalities in my district, and that many fire departments, while I said it is $300 a year, it really meant a whole lot more than $300 a year to them. So they were very appreciative of that.

They were certainly very appreciative of the investment that we made into fire trucks this year, now bringing our budget up to $3.9 million, Mr. Chair. As we know, there is a lot of aging equipment, particularly firefighting equipment, in our districts. I even have one that has a fire truck that dates back to 1974. No doubt, they have an application in for that now. They understand that we cannot do all things at all times, and be all things to all people. They understand that we have to prioritize, but they see that government is putting more money year over year into fire trucks. Last year, we put more money into fire equipment, and we are sustaining that level this year at a million dollars. So, again, particularly the announcements in the Budget around the firefighting equipment were certainly something very welcome for them to see.

Mr. Chair, when I first got elected almost eight years ago, I recall the state of the roads in our district, and not only in our district, Mr. Chair, throughout the entire Province. There was fifteen, sixteen years of absolute neglect. It is not to say that the roads in the district are perfect now, because they are not, but we are getting there, and we have made significant investments in roads over the years.

Mr. Chair, this year, our provincial investment in roads is over $216 million. This will go a long way throughout the Province, which is critical for people travelling to work, it is critical for safety, it is critical for tourism and that was one of the things that certainly was raised last night with the Minister of Transportation and Works present. They are looking forward to seeing what road work will be done in the district, but they will just have to wait a little bit longer for that one, I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Along with the roads budget, Mr. Chair, there is also funding for brush cutting and I know as a lot of members here in the House we do a lot of travelling and one of the things that I have noticed over the years particularly this year as we drive over Veterans Memorial and drive even along the Trans-Canada when you just get past Paddy's Pond, along the CBS highway, parts of the district and throughout the Province –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JOHNSON: Thirty seconds to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, by leave.

MS JOHNSON: I will just clue up on the point of brush cutting and the investment in that, Mr. Chair. It certainly goes a long way. This is the time of year now when the moose are getting rid of their yearlings so they can have their next calf. It is May 24 weekend coming up so with young yearlings on the road, being a little disoriented because their mothers have abandoned them and with more vehicles on the road, Mr. Chair, this brush cutting will go a long way in terms of safety.

I will certainly end on the note that I wish everybody a very safe and happy long weekend and I am very pleased to support Bill 26.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr Chair.

It is always a privilege to speak and to be able to stand and speak for a few moments to the amendment put forward in Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.

It is a money bill so it is good to be able to stand and speak about money. I have to be honest I am kind of glad I am following the minister because she really makes it sound as though, and I guess she is sincere, that this government has all the answers. I believe in giving credit, Mr. Chair, where credit is due and the government has done some good things –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: - but I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that if this government was red or orange or green or any other colour, outside of blue, and they went from a budget of $3.8 billion a year to $8 billion, you might see some good things from them as well. Perhaps not as good as the government of this minister as she would want you to believe, but I would suggest that you might see some roadwork, you might even see some water and sewer put in some municipalities, Mr. Chair. After all, you have to spend the money; you have to do something with it. It is okay to stand and it is okay to talk about what the government is doing, but to portray it in the light that this is because of us, it is as though this would have never happened, we would never have reaped the benefits of good incomes and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: The past eight years have been the most important eight years in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador since creation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Chair, I have problems with that kind of philosophy and thinking. Anyway, nevertheless, there are investments in Newfoundland and Labrador that are very important. Things such as the MOGs, and I acknowledge the increase in the Budget this year, it is a one-year thing. Although the Minister of Municipal Affairs did commit in Estimates, I believe it was, to the fact that this was basically a base for going forward and that municipalities could expect those amounts or similar amounts in the following years. This is a one-time stated increase and it is an election year, so we realize that the money is going to be spread around to try and make it as sweet as possible.

Mr. Chair, it is important that municipalities have an opportunity to upgrade their sewer and water systems, the fire trucks and things that have been put in the Province, very important. I know communities in my district, as I am sure other districts throughout the Province, Mr. Chair, have fire suits that are outdated; they have pumps that no longer work. Really, they are depending on a community that probably might be fifty or sixty kilometres away to provide fire services in case of such an emergency. You have $8 billion; I would suggest, spend it wisely. In terms of investing in municipal infrastructures would be one of those particular ways that it can be done.

Mr. Chair, what I see perhaps as one of the most somewhat controversial things that I see right now and where we can, I believe, squander a lot of our money is in terms of our waste management strategy. At this point in time we are waiting to understand what the strategy is going to be for Western Newfoundland and Northern Newfoundland. While it is all good, obviously, to have a good strategy in place and waste management is important and caring for our environment is important, I would suggest that transporting all of our waste from Northern Newfoundland through Western Newfoundland, from L'Anse aux Meadows down through Port aux Basques right into Central Newfoundland and to the Norris Arm area, it is going to be quite an expense. I am not sure that is the best way to go about it, quite honestly. I think it is something this government needs to look at; they need to understand. Is that the most feasible thing that can be done?

I know there are certain types of waste that we have to take. No matter where it is from, we have to pull it out, get together, and send it even outside of the Province. I am not certain we need to have just two locations in Newfoundland that we are going to pull our waste to. Obviously, my concern is the geography that is covered in Western Newfoundland and on the Northern Peninsula. Who is going to cover the cost of moving all of this material? It might make a lot of sense in Central. It certainly would make a lot more sense in Eastern Newfoundland. I am not certain that economically it makes a lot of sense when it comes moving all of the waste over such great distances and such geography. I say that because there are so many other things needed.

I have seen improvements, we have all seen improvements in our roads since the oil has started flowing, the royalties have started coming, and the price of oil has gone where it has gone. Obviously, we have had money to spend and the roads have been improving, but, Mr. Chair, there are still a lot of improvements to do. There are plenty of roads in my district, for example, that still need to be improved.

The Conch road is one example of a road that is reconstructed. There was basically a new road put in there four or five years ago. The people are very appreciative of that. It is a great road. It really opens up the whole Province and opens up opportunities to them, but right now they are waiting for the final piece and that is the paving. Mr. Chair, there is no commitment to that. There does not seem to be any real intent to do that at this point in time. I would suggest that is just one example of how we can better spend our money than gathering our waste from all around that region and pulling it off into Central Newfoundland, some 600, 700, or 800 kilometres away.

Mr. Chair, there are many other things that can be done with it as well. We have a situation that I have brought to the House before and I continue to work through with Municipal Affairs and the Department of Fisheries, hoping that something can be done with it soon. We have a situation in Englee of the old fish plant there that closed down some years ago. It is just continuing to deteriorate. It is an eyesore. It really is holding the community back from being able to diversify, to be able to take advantage of federal programs that are there for them in terms of funding, to be able to put new infrastructure in there and trying to attract new business of a different nature.

Mr. Chair, that town is basically held at ransom at this point until this government is willing to commit to funds to do some removal, some remediation, and some environmental cleanup possibly. They really have nowhere to go. It is an example again of someone who, while they may be concerned about the environment and they may want to participate in a waste management strategy, I would suggest it certainly would not be the number one priority on their list at this point in time and would consider other things that are much more important.

We hear lots of talk in the paper and in the media and on Open Line and so on about broadband. I presented that petition here in the House of Assembly on several occasions and will continue to do so until such point that we understand what the strategy for it is and we can anticipate where – I forget the percentage but if it is 20 per cent or whatever it was, I am not quite sure now, of the number of residents in our Province who do not have access to broadband and high-speed, then I look forward to seeing that. Again, good investments in areas that we have feel that really can give a community and its people an opportunity to move forward. Cellphone service is another area that continues to plague a lot of the rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are basic communications, that, without them, it really cripples any opportunity of participating in a global economy, of participating in a global market.

Mr. Chair, those are the kind of things that I believe we can spend our money wisely in. I certainly would suggest to the minister, as she spoke a moment ago, that she might want to reflect on some of the things that perhaps we have not done as well as we could have done in terms of the investments of our funds and our monies in the past eight years, as this government is so ready to stand and pat itself on the back for.

Mr. Chair, this bill that is before us is talking about the immigrant funds that come to us from the federal government to the provincial governments. It is talking about the loan guarantee that the Province puts in place each year to repay it over the five year agreed time frame, and specifically it is somewhere around $55 million - $54.6 million, I believe, is the number. Of course, it is paid annually and, therefore, the act is there to cover that particular repayment.

Mr. Chair, it is good to be able to speak and share those concerns that I have as a Member of the House of Assembly, as a representative from the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I thank you for the time this afternoon.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to rise today in this hon. House and have a few comments on Bill 26. First of all, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that when it comes to this hon. member in this hon. House, I have no problems in supporting this government and supporting this Budget. I think that there are an awful lot of very positive things in this Budget. I think when we go around this Province – I know only last week I was in my district with the wonderful Minister of Finance and he spoke in Pasadena. In Pasadena, he highlighted some of the things in the Budget, and I must say it was very positive.

Mr. Chair, the dark ages of economic instability in this Province are now over, and that happened in 2003. In this Province today, there is an economic reaffirmation brought about when this government changed. There is a rebirth of strong economic activity and it is for the benefit obviously of the people of this great Province.

Mr. Chair, in this hon. House we have heard from the Opposition talk about Muskrat Falls. Well, I would like to say that I am very much in support of Muskrat Falls, its 824 megawatt project. It is the least cost option for domestic supply in this Province and it will keep fees low for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the future, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: It translates into lower and stable rates. What I find surprising is that despite a $7.3 billion Budget - the highest in this Province's history - and with diverse expenditures covering many government departments, that the Opposition members seem to not support the Budget, which, to me, is quite surprising given that it is the best Budget that has ever been brought down in the history of this Province.

Mr. Chair, it is a Budget that has a new energy rebate and child tax credits, estimated to put more than $44 million annually into the hands of residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, there is about $16 million for new initiatives to support families and children in this Province. Of course, there is a multi-year infrastructure strategy valued at more than $5 billion, with $1 billion targeted for 2011-2012 - absolutely phenomenal, Mr. Chair, wonderful - $2.9 billion in this year's Budget for health care - $2.9 billion - as well as $8.8 million for areas of mental health and addictions; $1.4 billion for educational initiatives in the K-12 system. Well, I used to be a school administrator a number of years back, Mr. Chair; we used to have to go around the classrooms with buckets to collect the water that was coming into the rooms of the school. The schools were full of mould and stuff. Look at the amount of money that has been going into the budgets in this Province in the last few years. Administrators in this Province have told me that this government is making a difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, $175 million in business development for programs, including $8 million to expand broadband to more communities. That is something that I am looking for. It is obviously not only a benefit to my district, but other districts as well. Well, this government already, under the Broadband Initiative, has already provided – we now have broadband services in about 80 per cent of this Province, but we still have more work to do. This government will do that work, Mr. Chair. No doubt about that in my mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: We will continue investments in Labrador through the Northern Strategic Plan, and will exceed $3 billion at the end of the current fiscal year. So, this government certainly has done a lot.

I am so pleased with the new captain of our ship, the Premier, the new Premier. Our new Premier being captain of this ship is doing an admirable job. Of course, our Finance Minister has done an exceptional job. We, as a government – cabinet members, caucus members – this government is on the right track for the economic revival of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are on the right move, we are on the right road, and we are going to get there. No doubt about that at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Right decisions are being made to benefit not only my children, but my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren, Mr. Chair. No doubt about that at all.

This Province and the funding that we have will benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This year alone, the infrastructure investments in this Province are expected to produce 7,680 person-years of work.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. KELLY: Seven thousand, six hundred and eighty person-years of work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: This will help strengthen the economy and provide further opportunities for the Province's strong and productive labour force.

Despite the situation we were in a couple of years ago – it is often referred to as the great recession. We knew about the Great Depression in the 1930s, but this government's expenditures in infrastructure, this government's forward thinking, and this government's foresight is why we are where we are today: leading the country in terms of economic growth. We should all be so proud of that. That is a tremendous achievement in itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Infrastructure to create jobs, to build a bright and prosperous future for the people of this Province, for future generations, and again for my little grandchildren.

Transportation and Works: This past week on Saturday evening I was in Reidville and I spoke at a volunteer appreciation night they had for the people in the community. One of the things I talked about while I was there was two bridges; one, the Upper Humber River Bridge, and the other one, the bridge going into the community of Reidville, the Rocky Brook Bridge. Those two bridges are being refurbished in my district this year. That is part of the $343 million infrastructure investment by this government, and I am so thankful for that. Thank you to the Minister of Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Last year we had a problem in the fall with Hurricane Igor. This Budget contains funding to address that concern. Again, there is so much in this Budget, you can go on and on and on, and it is there. There is $38.7 million for buildings in this Province, and $1 million to continue the redevelopment of the Sir Richard Squires Building in Corner Brook on the West Coast.

I was so proud the other morning when I was driving into the Confederation Building when I heard the mayor from St. Brendan's on Open Line. Again, she was praising up the Minister of Transportation. She was also praising up the Member for Terra Nova and the new ferry that this government – Mr. Chair, the MV Grace Sparkes and the MV Hazel McIsaac are two new ships in this Province's fleet. It is time to get beyond the years of neglect and this government is moving forward for the benefit of the residents of this great Province.

Water bombers: In Deer Lake, the airport is there and they provide water bomber services. This government has put money into water bombers in the last couple of years as there is money in this Budget for that. There is money for the construction of new salt storage sheds, which is important. Of course, I come from a district that has a significant transportation department. Of course, this Budget has $10 million for the purchase of heavy equipment for transportation. That is so important.

Municipal Affairs: Last night I got on Open Line and I spoke about Municipal Awareness Day. I thanked the municipal volunteers, the councillors, and also the staff in my district for the wonderful job they do. This government has not forgotten municipalities either. This year, for example, they increased the MOGs. Five of seven communities in my district will have their MOGs increased by 50 per cent; the other two will have their MOGs increased as well for a significant total.

So, Mr. Chair, as I look at this Budget and I see so much, ten minutes does not do me justice to get up here and talk about the absolutely incredible things that are there. Money for social housing - and I hear that often from the other side - investments in tourism and tourism infrastructure; that is in this Budget, Mr. Chair. Tourism: Last year we had over a half a million visitors, the highest number in the history of this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KELLY: Yes, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, if I leave any doubt in anyone's mind that I am not supporting this Budget, I apologize. I am certainly supporting this Budget and proud to do so.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak again here in the House, dealing with the expenditures of our money and how our money is being expended. Honest to heavens, Mr. Chair, I do not know if sometimes I really am in the Legislature or I am on a ball field, or where I am with this crowd, the way in which they are going around cheering each other, et cetera. Honest to goodness, you would think that they had all produced the oil that is in our offshore and they had all produced the minerals that are under our ground, because that is where the money is coming from in this Province right now, mainly. That is coming, not because this government or any on the government created those resources, those resources are there. This government was lucky enough to be the ones to come in at a time when the production of oil finally started to pay off. They know that as well as we do, and the people out in the Province know it too. So you can cheer all you want and you can shout all you want, but the people know where the money is coming from. They did not produce it and it is not their money, it is the people's money.

I said this before in the House, but it has to be said again: Taking care of the needs of the Province is the responsibility of government. I am not going to go around saying rah, rah, rah because the government is spending money where it should be spending it, spending money on infrastructure that has to be kept up. We have to keep up our roads. We have to keep up our schools. We have to build new hospitals. This government is lucky that we now have the resources to do it the way we need to do it the way we need to do it, Mr. Chair. They can rah, rah, rah all they want, the people out there know that. They are not the ones who created the money. It is almost as bad as watching Mr. Harper during the federal election going around with Canada written across his chest. Somebody needed to remind him, he is not Canada.

Just like yesterday, I heard one of the people in this House say that when the people speak, that is really them speaking. Give me a break, Mr. Chair. We are all in here because we have been elected by people to be here, but we are not the people in and of ourselves. We have a responsibility to bring the needs of people into this room. The government has the responsibility to make sure that money is spent for the good of people, but the government is not the people, and I am not the people. We are here representing needs. We all need to have some humility around that, who we are. The government certainly needs to have some humility around that, Mr. Chair, who they are. Being lucky enough to have this money to do what needs to be done in the Province, it is great, and they should be really grateful, but they have a big responsibility because of that. They have a major responsibility because of it.

One of the things that really concern me is that I see money being spent sometimes and I do not know what the plan is for where the money is being spent. That is one of the weaknesses of this government, Mr. Chair, and it is a weakness that is picked up by people in the Province, it is a weakness that is said to me in many, many sectors: Ms Michael, where is the plan for that? Where is the plan for child care? Where is the plan for home care? Where is the plan for preventative measures around chronic diseases? Where is the plan? Where does this government want to be in five years' time with child care? This is what people see, this is what people question. We have one plan after another that we are waiting for, Mr. Chair.

I remember back in 2007 how we kept asking for the Energy Plan, Mr. Chair. Finally - I think it was in August of 2007, not too long before the writ was dropped for the election - the so-called Energy Plan came out, and it was no more of a plan, it had no concrete goals, it had no concrete strategies, it had no timelines, it had visionary statements without any way in which to bring those visions into any kind of fruition. So, consequently in the Energy Plan we have all kinds of wonderful things being stated around wind energy, for example, and doing research into alternative energy sources. Wind is named, solar energy is named, and wave power is named. Four years later, where are we with regard to the so-called Energy Plan? Well, we are nowhere, simply because it was not a plan. There were no commitments made, there were no goals set down, and there were no timelines, so there is nothing to work toward. So, nobody can evaluate, nobody can take the Energy Plan and say, okay, how well did they do, because there is nothing to evaluate, there is nothing to look at, and that is how we are with everything.

I have now been almost – well, it is four years. I have been four years standing here in this House and asking for a home care plan. We are still waiting for a long-term care and home care plan. Yesterday, we had a motion here in this House with regard to the use of glucose strips, Mr. Chair. We were talking about the strategy for prevention and for management of chronic diseases, and the minister has told me - and I know it was said in Estimates - that there is a strategy and it will soon be coming, but we keep being told that over and over and over. The minister would not even allow yesterday any sense of urgency about getting that strategy out. He even had to move an amendment to the language that had any sense of urgency.

Why is it that this government cannot put plans out there with goals and measurable indicators that we can take and evaluate down the road? What kind of a child care plan does this government want? What kind of a child care system does it want? We do not know. So, we get a two-year pilot project, but I do not know what the goal of that two-year pilot project is. They do not give us a sense, Mr. Chair, of where they are headed. What kind of a home care program does this government want? I do not know. I have no idea because it has not said. We just continue to move along, spending the money, without putting in place the goals and plans for the spending of that money. That is the weakness of this government, Mr. Chair. Every sector I speak to say to me that they get frustrated because government, in their sector, does not have a plan for them. They do not know where this government is going.

So, Mr. Chair, that is the weakness. It is not that they are not spending money. I get tired of the figures, the dollar signs, being thrown at me by this government. I get tired of it. That is the money they should be spending, but I also have the right to ask: Are you spending it in the right way, and was the pilot-project the way to go with that child care plan, so-called plan? Was that the way to go? I do not think so. Tell me where you want to be in five year's time with child care and tell me every step you are going to take in the next five years, how you are going to do all of those steps, why the money is being spent, and then I might say yes, you know how you are spending your money on child care. It is going to be the same way with regard to a home care plan. That is the kind of thing I am going to be looking for.

Do you know what I am afraid of? That I am not going to get a plan. That it is not going to be a plan that is going to come to us. It is just, again, going to be one of these sorts of nebulous, visionary statements. If that is what we get again, Mr. Chair, it will be awful, but that is what we have gotten in the past with so-called plans from this government, like the Energy Plan. We just are expected by this government to accept whatever they do without any critical analysis. The people in this Province want a critical analysis and I will continue giving a critical analysis. I know, whether they want me to say it or not, that my critical analysis does hold water, and my critical analysis does have accuracy, and my critical analysis is informed. They can mock that all they want, but they know, and that is why they mock so loudly, that that critical analysis is solid. People in this Province know it is and people in this Province expect it.

That is why people are elected to be in this House, not so that everybody has the same voice, because that is not the way it is. People do not all have the same voice outside in our communities. That is what democracy is all about. We have different visions and we have to learn how to work together. Mr. Chair, if we do not work together, government just gets to make all the decisions. We do not really discuss issues. What we do in Estimates is not a discussion of issues.

Mr. Chair, I am tired of the rah, rah, rah. I am tired of this thing you have to accept everything that we are saying. I am glad I had the opportunity today to raise some of these issues, but I have some very more concrete ones that I want to raise when we get into our discussions next week, and I will be raising them, Mr. Chair. So I thank you for the opportunity of at least opening up the direction in which I want to go to next week.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure to have an opportunity to stand and speak on Bill 26. It is interesting I would follow the Leader of the NDP, who is tired of hearing the figures. We are tired of hearing her figures as well, they do not add up.

Mr. Chair, I am going to take a different approach today, since she is tired and worn out and tired of hearing all the figures. I will talk about something else, Mr. Chair.

I do want to reference a couple of things. Comments from the Opposition side today talking about how we have increased budgets, and because we have increased budgets we should cease spending. He failed to point out that our increase in budgets is because we have increased revenues. We are increasing spending in the Province but we are not borrowing five cents to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not five cents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: If you go back in our history, and you can go back to 2003 when this government took over, you will see spending but you will debt, you will see borrowing, adding to the fiscal problems of the Province.

Mr. Chair, today I sat through Question Period, and I looked up in the gallery, we had some students here today, some young students, and I have a couple of young children of my own. I cannot help but think, back in 2003 many families in this Province had very little hope. They had very little hope that their children would have a future right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, Mr. Chair, since 2003 that has changed. We all believe our children can live and work right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Some time ago this government made a commitment of no more giveaways. We committed to no more giveaways, Mr. Chair, and we committed to develop the resources for the benefit of people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, I heard a comment today from the Leader of the NDP, we have always had our resources, and she is absolutely right. I remember when I came to this House in Grade 7 as a visitor, and I can remember back in our school books when we always heard about how rich Newfoundland and Labrador was in resources. We have always had our resources, but it was the leadership of this government that was able to develop those resources for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: It wasn't luck, it was leadership. It was leadership that provided an opportunity for us to reap the benefits of everything we have in this Province.

Now, Mr. Chair, not only did we develop our resources and continue to do so, but we have the proof. We have the strongest economy in our country. We have a business climate that is inviting, it is optimistic, it is positive. We are recognized in having more confidence in business in this Province than anywhere else in the country. There is new life in our Province, pride, confidence, and I do not just mean the Northeast Avalon. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is stronger than it has ever been. While we lead the country in economic indicators, Mr. Chair, I cannot help but remind the people of the Province that we are continuing with a Budget that we recently brought in, and a focus and a vision to the future to continue to build on the great things that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, we believe and we know times are good in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now is the time for our government to build on our strengths, to build on our success and continue to invest for the future, invest in urban areas and invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. One shining example is that this government is committed to a $5 billion investment in infrastructure; $5 billion, Mr. Chair. It is absolutely amazing.

Mr. Chair, the Leader of the NDP today stood and talked about that we have to do these things, we have to invest; we have to. Well, every government previous to us had to do the same. Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition stands and talks about poor roads? Why is it that I have to drive over poor roads in my district, and Minister King has to worry about investments in his hospital? Because previous governments did not make those decisions for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but our government is investing for the future and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, when we talk about Newfoundland and Labrador and the economy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DALLEY: - I know, we all know, that the strongest part of our economy is on the Northeast Avalon. There is nobody in this government who will discount the value and the contribution of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: I can look to our traditional economies of mining, forestry, fishery, tourism and I can point out a number of things across the Province that is happening which is showing a resurgence, a boost to the economy, and people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are reaping the benefits.

Mr. Chair, I want to speak a little bit about my district. I can reference things that are happening in my district that will show how the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador across the Province is strong and strong because of investments and decisions that this government is prepared to make. Our belief is that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is alive, it is well, and there is continued life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that we support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: I can point to, Mr. Chair, the Fogo Island Co-op for example, that got our fishery going last year. An extremely busy part of the season for them last year, Mr. Chair, they helped get this fishery going in the Province. I can look to the shrimp plant in Twillingate where they are now processing – they made a decision the past two years to process shrimp in the middle of the winter, eight weeks in January and February when people seasonally employed can now go back to work, Mr. Chair. That is opportunity, that is confidence, and that is good things happening out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Chair, I can go and talk about Eastern Star Group, which is a new company that started in Twillingate, my hometown, my own district. Mr. Chair, value added to the shrimp industry, new technologies to the Province, creating eighteen to twenty-five jobs right in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, new jobs, new money, new investment.

Added to that, Mr. Chair, I would like to briefly talk about tourism. I will get into some more of this next week. When we talk tourism, we have all seen The Telegram the last few weeks – three days, first ad, Fogo on Fire; Fogo Island on fire, Mr. Chair. What a statement when someone wants to stand up and condemn this government about rural Newfoundland and Labrador when the headlines show Fogo Island on fire; a great Island in this Province where the economy is booming, there are investments happening, and our government is supporting what is happening, Mr. Chair. A true testament to what is happening out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Chair, this social entrepreneurial model that is happening on Fogo Island is creating jobs; some 100 jobs will be created. It is getting respect and attention around the world. Leading magazines on architecture and tourism are covering Fogo Island. It is bringing attention to Fogo Island, Change Islands, The Isles of Notre Dame and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We saw a 23 per cent increase in tourism traffic last summer, Mr. Chair. What that means is that there is confidence in the area – it is a boost for tourism, it is a boost for the economy and we are seeing the difference. Younger families are moving back home, new houses are being built, you cannot find carpenters to do the work because everybody is busy. Hardware stores are busy, things are good. Things are real good in The Isles of Notre Dame and that is only one example of things around this Province and another example of how our government recognizes and values rural Newfoundland and Labrador and are quite prepared to stand and put our money where our mouth is and invest in our rural communities.

Mr. Chair, I only have a minute left, I would like to make reference as well that when we talk economies and talk rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is our government that recognizes and values our rural communities. A Liberal Government of fourteen years did not recognize it, Mr. Chair. I will tell you why – because our islands in particular cannot survive without ferry services. They cannot survive. Well this government has put our money where our mouth is. We believe in these rural communities and we put $56 million this year alone to support ferry services in this Province. That is commitment to our rural communities and that is a belief that our rural communities are strong, they are vibrant and we are quite prepared to support the people in our rural communities.

In Fogo Island and Change Islands alone, we have committed to build a brand new ferry. Some $70 million or $80 million is going to be invested in a brand new ferry for the people of Fogo Island because it is this government that is planning and has a vision to be able to develop our resources and to put us in a position to continue to invest in the things needed around this province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DALLEY: We look forward to doing a whole lot more of it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It must have been another one of those days when they were giving out those energy drinks coming in the through the doors or something, I would suspect, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for your protection as I speak.

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Business really set himself up, in my opinion, while his track record is only short in his department. I cannot wait until next year. It should be very interesting to look at the Estimates and see how well the department has done. When we look in his department this year, Mr. Chair, we see that he had $25 million –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: You worry about your own, not mine, I would say to the member.

Mr. Chair, he had $25 million to attract business to the Province. When we look at the Estimates, we see that he gave out $1,075,000 out of $25 million. So I would suggest, Mr. Chair, there is some work to be done in his department yet. I would not brag too much about what I have accomplished and what I am doing.

It is interesting, Mr. Chair, that he stands and talks about things like not borrowing five cents for spending in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, Mr. Chair, I made the point in the House a couple days ago and I will make it again: The net debt of this Province is still where it was ten years ago. It has not changed. As a matter of fact, it is a little more. In that same time frame, the incomes have gone from $3 billion to $7.5 billion, so let's not brag about not borrowing money. Let's not brag about not having to go out and borrow money to run our economy. Let's start bragging when we see our net debt starting to come down, getting our net debt back in line, and so on. If it was not for the income that we have, Mr. Chair, our debt ratio would still be through the roof, as it was a few years ago.

Mr. Chair, I listened to them stand with their written speeches and they are all the same, pretty much. I guess they all come off the photocopier. I listened to the member for Humber West and Deer Lake. It was interesting. I was quite amused to be honest listening to him as he read his speech.

Mr. Chair, it will soon be time for the government to start looking at their own report card I would say. You cannot keep going back too far into the past. They want to talk about before 2003. I would say that was a good speech, Mr. Chair, in the first two or three years of any government. I would suggest that is a good way to go. Eight years later it is kind of worn out. I think it is time to look beyond that, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Business is always talking about his district and how good things are; he did not mention the fact that there is a 20 per cent unemployment rate out there right now. Mr. Chair, there are a lot of people I would suggest in his district today who are looking for work. He talked about the Fogo Island Co-op as though it is something he brought in about two years ago. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, it was around when he was a boy. So, it is easy to get up and brag about things and doing well – we are glad it is doing well – but, Mr. Chair, let's be honest, let's put things in perspective if we can.

The member for Humber West and Deer Lake in his speech, in his boasting about all of what was going on forgot to mention one important thing, Mr. Chair, and that is the fact that Jackson's Arm is no longer open. There are 120 people down in the community in his district, Mr. Chair, who do not know where they are going to work this summer no more than they knew where they were going to go to work last summer. There are also, I would suggest, a good many in his district who worked at one time in a great forestry industry along the Northern Peninsula who are no longer working today because the paper mills are closed and the impact that has had along the way; no one mentioning that. Those things are a reality, those things have happened in the past eight years, Mr. Chair, the eight years that they are all talking and giving accolades for all of the good things that have happened.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we can all go back and forth and forever pat ourselves on the shoulder, but you know all things are not well. We look at the boil order issue that has been in the media somewhat these past few days; still 200 communities or so that are on boil orders. Mr. Chair, they have had eight years to fix that, they have not done anything about it. Still the same number as it was eight years ago. I am not sure if that is important or not but I would think that safe drinking water, Mr. Chair, for our children, for ourselves, for our senior citizens, to our schools, to our different institutions in our communities, I would think, Mr. Chair, that is pretty important to you and I and I would think that that is something that should be mentioned.

There are so many things, the member talked about transportation, all the great things that are on the go in transportation. He forgot to mention the thirteen highway depots that shut down every spring prematurely, Mr. Chair. I know in my district the one in Roddickton shuts down and in the summertime, Mr. Chair, what we do for maintenance is we have an individual leave Flower's Cove some 120 kilometres away or so depending on where they have to go, getting in a government truck and driving in the morning to go over and fix a piece of guardrail down by Englee somewhere or down in Conche or to do a little bit of grading. At the same time you have another worker probably leaving Roddickton and driving over to Port Saunders for the day to go work and do some little repairs over there. Mr. Chair, you want to talk about wise spending of money, there are plenty of things that have been happening in the past eight years, Mr. Chair, that I would suggest are not very wise, and these are only examples. The depot in Roddickton was closed down in March month, and we had two or three snow storms after that. People having to travel from all over the Northern Peninsula to get into the depot, to get the equipment out and get it going, and no one there to do the repairs because those were laid off.

Mr. Chair, this week we had the situation that has been brought to the House of Assembly floor with the transition in terms of the wildlife officers, the conservation officers that we have in the Province. Now all of a sudden, people who have taken training courses, people who have been employed and been fulfilling a particular job for the past number of years, they cannot do that work any more because of a better strategy, of a better way of doing it. Mr. Chair, quite frankly, it has crippled the whole conservation process, the process of being able to look after our resources, to look after our wildlife, to properly protect our people. Really, it has been crippled because of that.

Mr. Chair, there are so many things that if you want to praise on one side, I can easily stand up and be critical on the other side as well. Through Estimates with the Department of INTRD yesterday or the day before yesterday, we look at government spending, we see a Department of Business - the minister was just up. He spent $1 million last year tracking business in Newfoundland, it cost $2 million to do it, and he spent over $1 million in payroll. Mr. Chair, a department that could easily be taken into INTRD, it would not be missed. The only thing you would miss is the fact that it would be one minister less in the House of Assembly. Mr. Chair, it is no problem to find ways in which the spending is certainly not in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the taxpayers when it comes to things that need to be done.

We have economic boards throughout our Province that cost us money to run, they are good. We also have a Rural Secretariat that there is a big question mark around; we really do not even understand what it is accomplishing. It has been six, seven, eight years now, I was involved in the first one that started and I have to be honest, quite frankly, I really cannot find the difference in one piece to another. Yet we throw $2 million to operate that for the year, we throw $2 million to operate this piece.

Mr. Chair, we have a research and development group and we have this group. When you look at the mandate, or when you look at the vision statement, or when you look at the philosophy of what each place is all about, basically what you find is you find the same thing. It is all about stimulating our economy, it is all about diversifying our economy, it is all about attracting investment to Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is all about offering work to individuals, Mr. Chair. Yet we have all of these groups set up, all of these departments within departments, one layer on top of another layer and on top of another layer where we are spending millions and millions of dollars, I would suggest, doing the same thing.

These are the kinds of areas – and I agree with the Leader of the NDP as she talked about the plan. I believe there should be a plan. We have done a lot of strategic studies and I believe that when it comes to whether it is roads, whether it is infrastructure in communities such as water and sewer, I think we should be able to look into the future and understand where we anticipate being five years down the road. I realize that we do not have total control of our revenues; I realize that oil prices are volatile and they up one month and they are down the next month, but we have put a Budget out there.

We have estimated that based on historical data, based on expertise and advice, we have budgeted where we expect to be. We can realistically know where we are going to be, Mr. Chair, for the next five years I would assume. So if we know where we are going to be realistically, we should be able to say well we are going to get to this piece of infrastructure next year, we are going to get to this piece of infrastructure the year after, Mr. Chair. Rather than being in a situation where the Budget has come down last month, I have communities in my district, every MHA here, I would suggest, have communities in his or her district and they have no idea what their infrastructures are going to be for this year because they are waiting on government. They are waiting on government, they are waiting on the ministers to come back and say: Yes, we are going to give you this. Yes, we are going to give you that. No, we are not giving you that. No, we are not giving you that. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we should be able to plan things a lot better than that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: I realize my time is spent and I appreciate the opportunity to stand again this afternoon for a few moments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to stand today in the House and I am going to take the advice of the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. At the very beginning, he stood and said it is about time that the members opposite stop talking about the shortcomings of the Liberal Party and look at their own report card. So, I am going to talk about our own report card, Mr. Chair. I am very proud to stand here today and to reflect on this government's report card.

We came into power in 2003 and just look at what we have done. Just look at what we have done in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, when you start spending $1 billion a year on infrastructure, critical infrastructure, to address the infrastructure deficit that we had in this Province for years and years and years - now we are spending at a rate of $1 billion a year in new infrastructure. So, I can tell you about some of the things in that report card, I say to the member opposite.

When you look at fourteen brand new schools built in Newfoundland and Labrador and the bulk of them in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Seven of them are now complete and open; the other seven are in various stages of construction. Fourteen brand new schools in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - that is a part of our record I say, Mr. Chair. Tick that one off on the report card I say to the member opposite about his future, an A plus for the investment in education.

I look at my colleague, the member for the Connaigre Peninsula area; look at what we have done in that particular part of the Province. A few years ago, every single day you read the newspaper, listening to the news, what were they talking about? The death of the Connaigre Peninsula, the closure of the fish plant in Harbour Breton was the death nail for that area of the Province. What did we do? We came in to the rescue, we worked with the communities in that region, and we worked with the people in that region because we had a vision. We understood the capacity, we understood the potential, and we realized that with a strategic investment by our Province, working with the local community, we were able to turn that economy around. I say, Mr. Chair, it is a model. It is a model for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If you were to drive around this Province today and pick out a spot that has had its economy turned around, has a bright new future because of strategic investments by this government in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that is one area of the Province that you can look for a success story.

I say to the member opposite: Tick that one on your report card as an A plus; another part of our record, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: He talks about our debt. He talks about the critical state of our debt. It is a good job he was not around in 2003 when we had a twelve-point-something billion dollar accumulated debt in this Province, the highest per capita debt in the entire country, a Province that was actually on the brink of bankruptcy. It is a good thing he was not around then I say, Mr. Chair.

When we look at what we have done fiscally, we have reduced that accumulated debt by some $4 billion. Now, I say to the member opposite: Look at our record, tick that one off on the report card as well as prudent fiscal management.

Mr. Chair, I have only been talking for four minutes, I ask the member opposite: What do you think of our report card now? What do you think of that kind of impressive record?

I say, Mr. Chair, let's look at some of the other things we have done when we look at rural Newfoundland and Labrador. You start going around this Province today and look at where we have made a difference in the quality of lives of people. People told us a few years back that they wanted health services close to where they live, and we listened. Look at what we have done. We have put dialysis services on the Burin Peninsula. We have put dialysis services on the Connaigre Peninsula. We have put dialysis services back, in the member opposite's district, in St. Anthony. We have put dialysis services in Port aux Basques, dialysis services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, rural Newfoundland investments, Mr. Chair, strategic investments in health infrastructure to ensure that we are delivering health services where the people live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, look at our report card. You can tick that one off as well, as a commitment to making access to health services more affordable, easier access for dialysis services in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, Mr. Chair, a record of achievement, a record of commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Critical investments in infrastructure; look at what we have done in trying to diversify our economy, Mr. Chair. There has been must talk in this Budget Debate in recent weeks about the fact that most of our revenue is coming from the oil and mineral resources and non-renewal resources. Look at what we are trying to do in rural Newfoundland through our Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. We have a new Regional/Sectoral Diversification Fund. This year we have topped that up by $5 million.

Mr. Chair, every single cent of that gets spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are working with local communities. We are working with local agencies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to diversify many sectors of our economy. When you look at our commitment to rural diversification, again, look at our record. You can tick that one off, Mr. Chair, as a successful, strategic investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When the member opposite speaks to our record and challenges us to talk about our record of achievement but yet ignoring their years of neglect and dismal failure, and I do not mind ignoring that. I think he is right. We have been around eight years and we will stand tall and proud on our record. We do not need to criticize them for their dismal failure in the fourteen years they were there. We do not need to do that anymore. We have our own record to stand on, Mr. Chair, and we stand on it proudly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I wish I had more than ten minutes to speak today because we have such a long list of significant achievements, Mr. Chair.

Look at this year's Budget. Look at some of the other critical strategic investments we are making. We are making money available this year to, again, further enhance the work being done on the Connaigre Peninsula. Again, continued and further investments in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Look at what we are trying to with the agriculture industry, Mr. Chair, and the agrifoods industry. Strategic commitments in this year's Budget for investments in that sector to revitalize that sector to provide tremendous new opportunities in that very traditional sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, Mr. Chair, where does farming take place? You do not get many farms on Duckworth Street. You do not get many farms in the center of the city. Where do you find farms in Newfoundland and Labrador? They are in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair. That is again a reflection of our commitment to rural parts of this Province, helping to diversify and continue to grow their respective economies, Mr. Chair.

Municipal Affairs; when you start talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, look what we have done this year, Mr. Chair. We have made some significant commitments to small communities in rural Newfoundland. We have made some adjustments to increase the MOUs that we provide to municipalities. Where does the greatest portion of that money go? It goes into smaller communities because they are getting the greater percentage increase in this new investment in MOGs this year, Mr. Chair.

While I am on that issue of our record with Municipal Affairs; I say to the member opposite, when he starts talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and our investment, look what we did with the cost-sharing arrangement we had with the municipalities. We went from a 50-50 cost-shared arrangement with every single municipality, regardless of your size, regardless to how much money you had, and regardless to what resources you had available, to very strategically targeting small rural communities and said, we realize you do not have the kind of resources that others may have so we are going to cost-share your capital infrastructure by a 90-10 cost-shared arrangement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: We are putting in 90 per cent of the investment, Mr. Chair. When the member opposite says, what is your record? Tick that one off as well to our strong commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and supporting municipal governments in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly, Mr. Chair, those smaller communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because they need our support.

When we start talking about planning - the member opposite starts talking about having a plan - not only do we have a plan, Mr. Chair, but one of the fundamental things, planning is an exercise that starts when you have a vision. When the member starts talking about a plan, I can list off a dozen strategic plans that we have developed as a government and we have ‘operationalized' and those strategic plans were driven by a strong vision.

We have a vision for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador that sees us as a strong, vibrant people continuing to enjoy the success and the successful development of our resources. Do you know why, Mr. Chair, we had that kind of vision? Because we have faith and confidence in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; we have faith and confidence in their strength, their ingenuity, their own vision, and their talents.

I say, Mr. Chair, when we talk about our record, one of the things that we stand most proudly about is we appreciate and understand the potential of this Province. We appreciate and understand the capacity that we have as a Province to continue to grow. It irks me to no end, Mr. Chair, to listen to people in this House day after day after day talking about doom and gloom, the sky is falling, we do not have the potential, basically selling short the potential of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chair, I stand today proud and strong as I speak to some of the very -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: – of the major accomplishments that we have as a government. So I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North: That is only one piece of our report card, Mr. Chair –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: – and I am very proud to stand today to talk about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957". (Bill 26)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Acting Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report the resolution and Bill 26, and ask leave to sit again.

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

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion and to report the resolution and bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

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

The Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bill 26 and the resolution as passed and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

MR. SKINNER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a first time.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a second time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the resolution be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 26, and I further move that the bill be now read for the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, and that Bill 26 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 26 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 26)

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time.

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that Bill 26 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 26 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 26)

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957", read a second time. (Bill 26)

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that Bill 26 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. Government House Leader that Bill 26 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 26 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, given that the business of the House has now concluded, I would now move adjournment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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