The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to Your Honour's attention, a matter of what I consider to be the privileges of this House, and I believe they are being somewhat impinged upon in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to start off by reading the definition of what parliamentary privilege is, "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals."

Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, I think, were in the Chair some time ago when you recognized that a member's privileges can be impinged upon when an action is obstructing the member - in any way obstructing the member - from doing that member's duties or from carrying them out in a manner that is above board.

You also, at that time, heard a submission that any action taken by any member who has a tendency to obstruct or deny a member's ability, to obstruct or deny any member from carrying out their duties, any action on the part of any member of the Legislature who has the tendency to obstruct any member from carrying out their duties, is a function of the privileges of that House.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, let me just say that I believe that misquotes - in other words, making statements that are not true - whether they are deliberate or otherwise, can lead to such obstruction.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say to you that I believe the same privileges should apply to officers of the House, as well as individual members. When another member rises in this House and misquotes or misinforms the House, I believe, whether it is deliberate or not, it is fair to say that if they make those statements about an officer of the House then they are breaking the privileges of this House.

It has come to my attention that the Leader of the Opposition has made public statements which represent a mis-characterization of the work and findings of the Auditor General in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to point out to you, but I will for the record, that the Auditor General is an officer of the House, under the Auditor General Act, section 4.(3), and should, I believe, be accorded the rights, privileges and protection as provided by the Legislature.

On November 23, the Leader of the Opposition made the following public statement - and this was in the public media. He says: and I keep referring to the Auditor General's report because the Auditor General is very concerned about the manner in which they - obviously referring to the government - are managing the Province's finances.

I would emphasize the section: in which they are mismanaging, or managing, the Province's finances.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, while in the House, has also cited comments that he attributed to the Report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 2000, in the House of Assembly on November 20, November 21, and November 23, 2001. I am going to give some excerpts, and I think they are relevant from Hansard, on the corresponding sections from the Auditor General's report, for your consideration.

On November 20, 2001, the Leader of the Opposition said, "Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General for this Province has stated that she is extremely concerned about the current state of the finances in our Province." You will find that in Hansard on page 1640.

Mr. Speaker, here is what the Auditor General really did say: I am extremely concerned with the current state of affairs - not, Mr. Speaker, with the current state of finances in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Oh, you can laugh.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I am not.

Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2001, the Leader of the Opposition said, "Should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador trust these numbers when the Auditor General of this Province clearly does not?"

Mr. Speaker, nowhere, nowhere in the Auditor General's report, does the Auditor General say that she does not trust these numbers. The word trust is nowhere to be found in her submission.

On November 20, 2001 the Leader of the Opposition says: "I happen to use the exact words as the Auditor General used and I quoted her verbatim, directly word by word.

On November 22, 2001, the Leader of the Opposition said, "Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, as I have stated before, is extremely concerned about the current state of affairs of the finances in the Province." I emphasis again, he is quoting the Auditor General as saying that she is concerned about the current state of affairs of the finances in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, here again is what the Auditor General actually said: I am concerned with the current state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, does that say I am concerned about the current state of affairs of the finances of the Province? Absolutely not. Here is what he was referring to: the present initiatives for government departments, Crown agencies and Memorial University are not legislated. With respect to the initiative for Crown agencies and Memorial University, they are not mandatory in that they are at the discretion of the minister responsible. None of the plans, information or reports generated under these initiatives are required to be tabled in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you take a very thorough review of the Auditor General's report, it will be demonstrated that at no time in that report did the Auditor General express that she is very concerned about the manner in which the provincial government has managed the Province's finances. Nowhere in that report will you find it.

The Leader of the Opposition, either deliberately or otherwise - I do not want to suggest to him that it was deliberate - but his decision to use these exact words while maintaining that he is quoting the Auditor General verbatim, I think, is very significant. I say that to him in all seriousness.

I further submit that at no time did the Auditor General state, as reported by the Leader of the Opposition in Hansard, November, 2001, that the Auditor General has stated that she is extremely concerned about the current state of finances in the Province, or extremely concerned about the current state of affairs of the finances of the Province.

I also submit to you that she, at no point in time, in any way, brought up - in any manner did she bring up - that she did not trust the numbers, as was clearly indicated by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you that I believe that these mis-characterizations of the Auditor General's report, both inside and outside the House of Assembly, and the attempts to pass them off as verbatim quotes, represents a significant and a serious infringement and an impingement on the ability of the Auditor General to perform her functions in a impartial manner.

The Leader of the Opposition has made concise claims and has attributed them to an Officer of the House. It is my contention that the Auditor General never made such statements, and the House of Assembly must seek to address the assault upon or interference with the ability of the Auditor General to execute her duties as set forth in the Auditor General's Act.

Furthermore, it is my contention that the Leader of the Opposition, by attributing non-existing findings to the Auditor General, is presenting to the House of Assembly a false statement that could, and has the ability to, deceive and mislead this House, either deliberately or otherwise.

I want to conclude by saying that it is critical that all Members of this House of Assembly and the Officers of the House of Assembly be held to the same standard of conduct as provided in the House of Assembly Act. It is also critical that the integrity of the House and its deliberations be maintained. Recent statements of the Leader of the Opposition must be interpreted in a manner that he intended them to be interpreted by members of the House and the public. Therefore, the exact statements of the Leader of the Opposition must be measured against the exact findings contained in the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 2000.

I ask that the House of Assembly, pursuant to the House of Assembly Act, that we would ask you to rule upon this and find that indeed there has been a breach of the privileges of members of this House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Before I get into, I guess, our opinion on the question of privilege, let me say that a question of privilege is rarely raised in the House; and members, when raising a question of privilege, must opt to do so because of the serious nature that such a point of privilege contains.

Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I believe, based upon the rules in this House, that the point of privilege raised by the Deputy Premier is, unto itself, unparliamentary, simply because it goes to motive. He is impugning on the Leader of the Opposition, a motive of being purposeful in intent to either deceive or to otherwise create a false perception.

I believe and I submit to Your Honour, the Chair of the House and the Speaker of the House, that, unto itself, impugning motives on another member - it is clear and the Deputy Premier knows this, as a former House Leader - that unto itself is unparliamentary.

Let me also say, because he has quoted certain things outside this Legislature, a distinction - and I say to Your Honour that, in ruling on this matter, we bear in mind that there is a distinction in Beauchesne, under Parliamentary Rules, between questions of privilege and questions of order. I quote §26.(1), "A question of order concerns the interpretation to be put upon the rules of procedure and is a matter for the Speaker or, in a committee, for the Chairman to determine."

On page 13 of Beauchesne, §31.(1), it says, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Section 31.(3) - this is important, because the Deputy Premier, the former House Leader under the government, knows the rules of Beauchesne, has quoted statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber West, outside this Legislature, and it is very clear - and I quote for your consideration, §31.(3), "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, in summary, this: One, the question of privilege raised by the Deputy Premier unto itself is unparliamentary, because it goes and impugns a motive on another member which, unto itself - standard practice and tradition in this House say that is not parliamentary.

Secondly, what we are looking at here is not so much a point of privilege but a point of order and a distinction between two members' statements.

Thirdly, that the Deputy Premier, in his submission to Your Honour, has clearly used statements outside of this House as a basis for his point of privilege, which onto themselves, Mr. Speaker, are clearly unparliamentary. The fact remains that the basis, I submit, for this point of privilege is to try to underscore again the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is doing his job in questioning the government on the management of the finances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That onto itself, Mr. Speaker, is unparliamentary. The fact remains that the questions asked in this House, references made, were made based upon standing reports that have been presented to this Assembly, not only for the members purview but for the review and purview of the entire listening public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong the matter, a serious matter, but just simply to say that, with reference to the unparliamentary language or any unparliamentary accusations, I clearly heard the Deputy Premier several times refer to the fact that he was not making any accusations in that matter, and certainly covered himself on three or four occasions to say that the Leader of the Opposition did not do it deliberately. So, he certainly did not do that. I am quite certain that if the Deputy Premier did that, he would do what all parliamentarians do and withdraw unequivocally.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make that clarification, that there was no attempt by the Deputy Premier to say anything unparliamentary or to attempt anything unparliamentary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the minister under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand in the House today to recognize the longevity of four individuals in my district who have reached milestones, I guess, that most of us here, and other people we know, would like to achieve, four people in my district who have celebrated their 100^th, their 101^st and 102^nd birthdays since the closure of this House last May.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the individuals names for the pleasure of the people hearing them here in this House.

Mrs. Annie Belle Johnson, who is residing at Shirley's Haven in Catalina, recently celebrated her 100^th birthday; Mrs. Laura Sweet, at the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, recently celebrated here 101^st birthday; Mrs. Gertrude Hobbs, of Jamestown, Bonavista Bay, who is residing with her daughter, recently celebrated her 101^st birthday; and Mrs. Gladys Yetman, residing at the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, recently celebrated her 102^nd birthday.

I say to members here, it is an inspiration to be able to sit and talk to those four individuals who can recall times past and can recall the events leading right up today. The old cliché that we have all heard growing up, is always repeated when you talk with them: Hard work never hurt anybody.

They are a testimony to that phrase, and I would like to recognize their birthdays and their special celebrations, right here in this House today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am sure all members here join with me in wishing those four individuals many years of happiness and health as they continue to enjoy life with their family and friends.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the work of a Bell Islander, Russell Bowers, in promoting the work and telling the life story of one of Newfoundland's greatest musical artists, Harry Hibbs.

The first product of his labour is an album entitled The Very Best of Harry Hibbs, Volume One. Since its release in August of this year, the album has had amazing sales. Interest is coming not only from the generation who listened to Harry, but it is also introducing the music to a new younger audience who are experiencing it for the first time.

There has been much interest in Harry Hibbs since his death in 1989, after a brief battle with cancer. Russell Bowers, who lived on Bell Island, started compiling the album and it fascinated him so much to hear the tales from people who had worked with the musician, that Bowers decided to take it one step further.

Bowers is now working on volume two and has also completed a documentary for CBC Radio, which aired in October. He thinks there may be a TV documentary and perhaps a book.

I should point out also that Russell's family still lives on Bell Island. His parents, Steadman and Daisy, reside there today.

Harry Hibbs has made a major contribution to the music of this Province, and I ask Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in recognizing the work of Russell Bowers and offering him our best wishes in the future on this project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer congratulations to a very special couple, Majors Ross and Beulah Cole, residents of South River, Conception Bay. Today, they celebrate their 65^th wedding anniversary. This wonderful couple were married in Deer Lake on November 26, 1936, raising a family of four, a family that has extended into twelve grandchildren and twenty great-grandchildren.

Not only did this couple dedicate their lives to their family, but they also made a commitment to their faith. Both Ross and Beulah answered the call to the Ministry by committing their lives in the service of their Savior through the Salvation Army Corps, accepting postings in all corners of this Province including Clarkes Beach, Fortune, Springdale and Lewisporte.

At an Open House, Mr. Speaker, at the Salvation Army Citadel in Clarkes Beach on Saturday past, Majors Ross and Beulah, surrounded by their family, were visited by friends and dignitaries. It was amazing to see the steady stream of well wishers intent on offering congratulations to a couple whose lives were such an inspiration to others, whose service to others and to their God has been unwavering for close to ninety years.

Mr. Speaker, this couple continue to contribute in many different capacities in their Church, their community, in any way they can to help improve the quality of life for those around them. In my conversation with both Major Ross and Major Beulah, I was assured by them that they did not intend to slow down as long as they could enjoy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was assured by them that they did not intend to slow down as long as they could enjoy continued good health. This humble couple were very appreciative of the attention they received from their family and friends, thankful for the congratulations I conveyed from the Premier, from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Lieutenant-Governor.

I respectfully ask all the members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Majors Ross and Beulah Cole on the occasion of their 65^th wedding anniversary, wishing them continued years of health and prosperity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to acknowledge and congratulate the volunteer efforts of Mr. Ford Rumbolt of Mary's Harbour and Ms Agnes Pike of West St. Modeste. Both individuals were not only awarded the Provincial Volunteer Medal by his Hon. the Lieutenant Governor, Maxwell House, at a ceremony in Goose Bay last week, but they also received awards for twenty years of service to municipal government in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Pike is currently the mayor of West St. Modeste, President of the Combined Councils of Labrador, a Director on the International Grenfell Association, a Director on the Labrador Straits Economic Development Committee, and also holds a set on the provincial Literacy Council, the Strategic Social Plan Committee for Labrador, and the Labrador Straits Family Resource Center. She has given more than twenty-five years to volunteer work in Newfoundland and Labrador, contributing to the enhancement and progress of communities and people.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rumbolt is currently the Deputy Mayor of Mary's Harbour, Vice-President of the Combined Councils of Labrador, Vice-President of the Southeastern Aurora Development Corporation, and holds positions on the Lions Club and the Local Church Committee. He has over twenty-five years of volunteer work in our Province and continues to advocate on behalf of the people of his region.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to learn and work with both these individuals. They have demonstrated many times their commitment to the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and also to our Province. It is my honor to recognize both of these individuals in this House today and to congratulate them for receiving these dual awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Mrs. Edith Bailey, a wonderful lady from my district, who is celebrating her 100^th birthday today.

Aunt Ede, as she is affectionately known to her friends, lives in Hickman's Harbour on Random Island. She is very alert, has a great sense of humor and is very active. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night, at a birthday dinner, she stood, took the microphone and said grace before the meal started.

Mr. Speaker, one other remarkable thing about Aunt Ede is her family history. I am sure that family must hold some form of record in Newfoundland because she has had two sisters who have reached the age of 103, one other who has reached the age of 99, another 97, and her mother died just three months short of reaching 100. Obviously, that family has achieved some sort of record, have recognized what it takes to live a long and prosperous life in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask everybody in this House to join me today in wishing Aunt Ede a very happy 100^th birthday.

Just to show you that she has not lost her sense of humor, and she still believes in Santa Claus, her request to Santa Claus this year is pretty simple and straightforward; she wants something very simple, like a man.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to relate a notable accomplishment on the Burin Peninsula.

In 1999 the 3L Training Board under the direction of George Doyle embarked on a plan to create employment opportunities for persons with developmental disabilities in the area of St. Lawrence, Little St. Lawrence and Lawn.

Their intent was to show that persons with challenging needs could be productive, contributing members of society. With the support of various groups and organizations I am delighted to say that their dream has turned into a reality.

Through forming their own company under the name of Island Rock Jewelry and using raw materials donated by St. Lawrence Mineral Products these challenging needs clients are producing beautiful handcrafted gemstone jewelry and souvenir items.

Some of these items, Mr. Speaker, are being displayed today outside the cafeteria in the West Block. The Member for Grand Bank district and I are both supportive and proud of this initiative and we urge all members and the general public to support this very worthwhile project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has spoken quite often about an open and a transparent and an accountable government. An example of this is supposed to be Bill 49, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy. Mr. Speaker, if this act is passed in its present form, it will enable this government to be more secretive, less open, less accountable and less transparent.

My question for the Premier is: How can you state that your government will be more open and more transparent when section 72.(1)(k) of this particular bill authorizes Cabinet to allow local bodies, such as councils, to conduct meetings in secret?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know how valuable time is in Question Period, and maybe the Speaker might like to inform and remind all of us that I have heard it ruled in this House many times in the twelve-and-a-half years that I have been here, that it is out of order to ask a question about a bill that is on the Order Paper, because we will answer all those questions in debate on that bill, and will gladly do so, and speak about all of the very fine new legislation that will make our Freedom of Information Act the very finest in the country.

If he has some objections, there is a debate at second reading, there is a committee stage, and there is a full debate that every single member of this House can speak to if they have any objections to any of the dozens and dozens of new, forward-thinking, open and accountable clauses that are in that piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to remind the hon. members of the manner in which we have dealt with questions that arise out of legislation that may be on the Order Paper. We have researched this in other jurisdictions and the ruling that was made recently on this, here in this House, was that unless the Government House Leader informs the Chair that a piece of legislation will be brought to the floor of the House, that the piece of legislation that is on the Order Paper is to be debated on a particular day, then the Chair will allow questions on some of the legislation that is before the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Premier, I have not been here for some twelve years, I have only been here for one week, but I was aware of your ruling which was made in March of last year. I have a copy of that for the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly; he is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: My first question has not been answered, Mr. Speaker, so I will ask the Premier: How can you state that your government will be transparent and open when section 72.(1)(k) of the bill authorizes Cabinet to allow local bodies, such as councils, to conduct meetings in secret?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To my knowledge, and I do not have the bill in front of me right now, although it has gone through our full Cabinet and committee system, we are very proud of it, Mr. Speaker. We are very proud of the fact that we are introducing brand new leading edge, nation wide leading edge, legislation with respect to freedom of information, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Two comments I would make, and maybe the Leader of the Opposition can enlighten me as he did with respect to the ruling - and I always appreciate him; I am always here to learn. I was a teacher in my career, understanding that the main part about teaching is being willing to learn. You have to be a receptive listener and learner, Mr. Speaker, always willing to learn.

Two things: to my knowledge, the word secret is not in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, it has always been a practice and maybe he would like - he is confirming, I think, that it is not there, that it is his word, that it is not in the legislation. It is very typical of what he did all last week, Mr. Speaker, when he tried to use language that was not in the Auditor General's report. The word secret, to my knowledge, is not in the legislation.

It has always been a practice, and I know he has participated in it himself when he has been involved in public organizations that he has represented as a member of the general public, and glad to do so as a volunteer, where it is necessary from time to time for a group or organization to have some private meetings so there can be a fuller discussion; because sometimes, Mr. Speaker, they are discussing individuals, personalities, people's wages, things that they have to make a full and frank discussion and decision about. Then, Mr. Speaker, the act also says that the outcome of those private meetings - not secret; to my knowledge that word is not there - the outcome of those private meetings have to be disclosed in a public meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to clarify that secret is his word, not the word of this government, not the word in the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Secondly, would he confirm that in his mind, because it is his first question of the day, that is the most important and critical issue on his mind and the minds of the Opposition today in this Province, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because that is the question he asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The exact words in the legislation are, "...in the absence of the public...", which mean in secret, code of silence, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question quickly.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in his leadership campaign, policy statement number six, in January of this year, the Premier told the people of the Liberal Party who placed him in office as Premier, and I quote him: The new Freedom of Information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. member that when questions are asked in this House, we cannot have preambles or read from documents, from telegrams and others. We cannot quote that. So I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly. He is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- should not be used as a vehicle to frustrate or prevent the quick dissemination of public information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member cannot quote from documents or telegrams or extracts from documents when he is presenting questions in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Premier: If he is so interested in providing the public with information, why does section 23(1)(e) of the bill prevent disclosure of information about negotiations carried on by your government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I do appreciate the acknowledgment of the Leader of the Opposition that the word `secret' was his word and is not in the Freedom of Information Act in Newfoundland and Labrador, not intended to be, never ever suggested that it might be, and Mr. Speaker, the exact words are: ...in the absence of the public unless another act expressly authorizes the local public body to hold meetings in the absence of the public and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, again to point out, the people of the Province should understand that of all the issues confronting us in Newfoundland and Labrador today, this issue is in the minds of the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Party. The most important thing on the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today is whether or not a town council can have a private meeting before they resort and report the results of it to the public meeting. So I am assuming there is something else that is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador that might be a little more urgent today than that, which we are going to debate here between now and Christmas, and we will come to amendments if we need them to make it more acceptable to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would not suggest that every single negotiation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is not going to suggest that every single negotiation that occurs between the government and any agency, organization or business that it is dealing with, should be held, like these meetings are, in front of the television cameras.

Mr. Speaker, if that is his position, I would be glad to have him spell it out for the people of the Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The negotiations that are before the people of this Province are very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier. Isn't is a fact that Section 23(1)(c) of the act gives you and your government virtual veto power to deny the public information about any negotiations which your government carries on, including Voisey's Bay and including the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Understanding, Mr. Speaker, again that the Leader of the Opposition likes yes or no answers, the answer to that is clearly and obviously no. There are no such restriction in this act.

Mr. Speaker, I know now that the Opposition finds it hard to acknowledge, and they do not like to acknowledge, that this has been, since February 13, the most open and accountable government that this Province has ever seen. Mr. Speaker, has ever seen!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, you can check the records in terms of information that has been provided to this government. It has gone immediately to the public and will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, our standard is this: When we are to enter into an arrangement on behalf of the people of the Province, it will be for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all of the details will be disclosed to every single soul in the Province who has an interest in it. There is no `secrecy' with this government. That is a word from the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier is obviously not familiar with the provisions of the act, Mr. Speaker.

Section 23(1)(c) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act states that the Premier and his government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the member ought not to be quoting from documents. He is on a supplementary. He should not require any preamble. He should get to his question immediately.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, I would ask you: Given this year's increasing deficit, why does section 23(1)(c) of this act give the government the absolute right to deny to the public vital information which would enable them to determine the impact on public services and programs in this Province? That is section 23(1)(c), Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it does not do that. This government has no plan to do that. Mr. Speaker, I know they find that hard to understand, but the whole notion on the modus operandi for this government is that, when there are issues that are of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they are fully disclosed and fully debated.

I know the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, does not understand that, because when the people that they used to support were in government - because I am not allowed to say when they were in government, because there are none of them there. There is not a soul over there, Mr. Speaker. They have one who is a former premier that they have relegated to the far end of the bench, Mr. Speaker, the very far end of the bench, because they do not want to be tied to things that they used to do and used to support. So, in fact, we will be judged proudly and gladly any day by our record which will be full, open disclosure and accountability, the likes of which has not been seen by any government in this Province before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: My final question for the Premier is: Why are he and his government using this very, very important piece of legislation to deny vital information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? What are you trying to hide?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me point out again, what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about is a bill that has been presented to this Legislature for debate. What he is talking about is not the law. If they have registered these objections and can substantiate in the debate that the proposition and preposition, that he is putting forward today, has some validity, we would even consider, as we always do, Mr. Speaker, appropriate amendments during the committee stage.

If you have a concern, lets debate it during the debate. We are hiding nothing. What we committed to, Mr. Speaker, when we established the review committee and when the Minister of Justice put the group in place and sent them around the Province and around the country, we committed to have the most up-to-date, most modern, piece of freedom of information legislation, anywhere in the country. Mr. Speaker, what's in our legislation reflects what is in the legislation in Canada and in North America today. We will gladly hear about it in the debate which will go on for the next couple of weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, we have been making public statements about how this government does not have a plan for health care. We have been making some comments about how this government continues to ignore advice that they are getting from people in the system. We continue to say that this government is reacting to Budget deficits and not functioning with a plan.

This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, we had the executive director of the Health Boards Association saying that this government does not have a strategic plan. The executive director of the Health Boards Association was saying that there are not operational plans, there are no operational standards. Mr. Speaker, the executive director is saying that there are no operational benchmarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What they are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that without those kinds of standards, without those guidelines, without those plans, there are major inconsistencies in the system as health boards are trying to implement their plans.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: How can this government be out spending $1.4 billion of this Province's money, $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money - we have already heard her say it is 44 per cent of our budget - how can we spend $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money without a plan? I ask the minister if she would provide that answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I find the gentleman's question rather perplexing because I know the Member for Trinity North was part of two of the regional health forums that were conducted. I know that he participated as an observer at the forum that was taking place in Clarenville, to the point where he even spoke to me afterwards to compliment me on the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Let me say, as part of that whole process of our regional forums, and again in the provincial forum which will take place over the next two days, the whole purpose of those boards was to look at all of the different elements that we need to have in place in order to have a strategic approach to health care in this Province.

This is not news, Mr. Speaker. This is something that I prefaced our regional forums with, saying that there are key elements of planning that need to be done in this Province in order to have a strategic approach to health care, and I have asked the people of the Province, through all of the stakeholders, over 400 people who have participated in these forums, to assist me in doing this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North, a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying, one more time, that she is ignoring what the health boards are saying? These are the people whom she has appointed, these are the people on the front lines who are running our health system. Is the minister saying, one more time, that she is going to ignore what the Health Boards Association is saying, and is she saying that there are plans, and is she saying that the Health Boards Association and the members that they represent, the health boards in this Province, don't know what they are talking about? Is the minister saying that there is a plan and that the Health Boards Association is completely wrong and that they don't know what they are talking about? Is that what she is saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, again when the Member for Trinity North was at the forum in Clarenville - and I believe he also attended the forum in Corner Brook - he was aware and would have recognized along with everybody else attending the forum, that every one of our health boards likewise participated in these forums. Every one of our health boards, our chairs, our CEOs, and numerous other members of our health boards, took part in these regional forums with the express purpose of trying to look at the key issues that we have and to give us our best advise on the six major planning areas.

Mr. Speaker, we published a document that we circulated and made available on the Internet, made available all across this Province as people wanted it, that identified six key planning areas that we were asking people to give us their advise so that we can in fact form a strategic health plan.

So I say again, Mr. Speaker, this is something we are actively working on. That is the whole purpose of the forums, that is why they are so valuable, and I am really looking forward to the provincial culmination of it tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North, final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister is not being very direct, because there are no standards, there are no guidelines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this government has spent and is spending $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money without a plan.

I ask, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister give the people of this Province some comfort in saying that at least by next year there will be a plan before we go out and spend another $1.4 billion? Can the minister give us that assurance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much more direct I can be in this regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how much more direct I can be in this regard. The department has plans, the boards have plans, and we, as a government, initiated a Province-wide consultation which members opposite have taken different positions on. Because, as I say, the Member for Trinity North, in speaking to the media on occasion, has indicated that the whole regional forum thing was useless and that it was not something we should be doing; yet, in speaking to me and to the facilitators of the sessions, has indicated that they thought it was productive.

That aside, the purpose of these forums was to look at our six major planning areas and to be able to devise from that a strategic health plan. That is our intention. We are doing the consultation that is necessary to deliver on that. It is just the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are, as well, for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Since the end of September, and that is almost two months, a particular patient has been occupying a bed in an intensive care unit in St. John's, waiting to access the home care he needs to enable him to go home. Because there is a freeze on home care, he occupies an expensive ICU bed, even though he is not in need of such a high level of care. I would like to ask the minister: When is this government going to stop wasting taxpayers' money and start managing the Province's health care system responsibly, cost-effectively and efficiently?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, home support in this Province costs over $50 million today. We are at a stage with home support where all of our boards, in every region of the Province, have to have wait lists in order to be able to try and contain the projected over-expenditure above and beyond that budget.

This is a very, very difficult area of health care for everyone to deal with. We know that there are particular, very complex -

[Technical difficulties.]

MR. SPEAKER: I guess what we should probably do is recess for a few minutes until we get this problem corrected. Is that in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: We will now take a short recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When the House recessed, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, I believe, was responding to a question from the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had begun to explain that, of course, the home support area of our health care system is one of the major cost drivers that we have in health care, and even with the fact that we have $50 million in the home support budget this year, all of our regions are having to have wait lists in place for all of their services.

Yes, we know there are complex cases in many cases that are within the institutions, the acute care setting, that are awaiting home support services, and we have asked the boards to work very closely with the acute care boards, with the institutional boards, to try and resolve these issues. However, there remains a very difficult financial problem with all of this, when you look at the fact that the boards are projecting an additional $5 million over-expenditure in this area, and they are trying to make every effort to live within this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer.

MS BETTNEY: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the needs of the individual here are paramount and I am certain that our officials, along with the boards, will attempt to do everything possible to resolve this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about budgets here. I would like to say to the minister: The cost of this patient's home care has been projected to cost about $30,000 per year. The cost of his ICU bed is in excess of $500,000 a year. Why is the minister jeopardizing vital health services when there is clear evidence that government's poor planning is causing gross waste in our health system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, is the responsibility of the Health and Community Services Board. They have this challenge of trying to deliver home support, along with a majority of other programs and services in this region. They are working very closely, I understand from my officials, with the St. John's Health Care Corporation in this area, to try and find solutions to some of these complex cases. In many cases they require special kinds of services that are not easily available or provided through home support. Each one is individual and I am sure they will do their best to try and resolve them as quickly as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It involves the sale of the Marystown Shipyard. Recognizing that negotiations are ongoing, Miguel Pazos, President of Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited, was quoted this past weekend as saying that a sale of the Marystown Shipyard was contingent upon the White Rose project going ahead. Will the Premier confirm that is the case, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Trade, Industry and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. gentleman from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is the same as I made to the Opposition House Leader. There are negotiations ongoing to hopefully open the Marystown Shipyard and put people back to work there. I think it would be somewhat premature at this time, and I think it would be somewhat harmful to the process of negotiations, to say any particular company were doing this.

We are meeting with the unions, the Chambers of Commerce, and the town council. We are not being secretive about it, but we are carrying on negotiations in a way that they are normally carried on. Hopefully, they will benefit not only the people who will work in Marystown when we are finished, but contrary to what the Opposition House Leader asked the other day, I would hope that in the process we are able to take care of some of the local unsecured creditors there as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Marystown are also hearing that the proponent of the White Rose project is contemplating a one-year delay in that project. Is this true, I ask the Premier, and how long will the people of Marystown have to wait for some response and jobs in the shipyard that this Province has put so much money into?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that we are carrying on negotiations with a group of people. In regard to the Husky project, it is our understanding that at this point in time - and the Minister of Mines and Energy would be in a better position than I would, maybe, but - the benefits plans is being prepared or about to be submitted to the minister to have a look at. There are thirty days which he has to respond to it. Then the company has to give project sanction after that period of time, after the minister....

I say to him that it serves no useful purpose, as much as he might like to score some political points on this, it serves no useful purpose for him to stand up today and try to instill fear and kill the hope that the people of Marystown might have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: It is doom and gloom, I say to him. Think positive! Be positive, as the people of Marystown are positive, and stand up and try to get a solution to the problem rather than score political points.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the Annual Report of the Office of the High Sheriff of Newfoundland for the period April 01, 2000 to March 31, 2001.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday, the member opposite asked a question about the Province's real GDP forecast for next year. For the record, and for the people of the Province's benefit, I would like to explain what real GDP measures and how it is calculated. Real GDP, Mr. Speaker, is a measure of quantity. It holds prices constant at 1997 levels and is affected only by changes in production volume. Real GDP indicates changes in the level of economic activity and it is driven by many things, including production gains, not price, in oil and gas, newsprint, mining and other industries.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to a report by the International Monetary Fund in his question. The International Monetary Fund is an international organization which promotes international monetary co-operation through various means including temporary financial assistance to Third World countries. The International Monetary Fund completes annual economic forecasts but, Mr. Speaker, it is not a credit rating agency and its forecasts are not generally comprehensive enough to use at the Canadian or the provincial level. Both the federal government and the Province rely on domestic as well as the U.S. economic forecasting agencies such as the Conference Board of Canada and major chartered banks.

The IMF report referred to by the member opposite acknowledges that the Canadian economy is slowing, and on that point we all agree. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our GDP forecast for the next year takes into account a number of factors including a slowing North American economy. Other factors which are used when forecasting GDP growth include consumer spending -

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - employment rates, investment spending, construction -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order because this is an abuse of the House. These questions were never asked by me at all. I ask the minister to refer to Hansard to find out what I asked. She indicated today that she would table the information in this House, and the questions referred to were never asked by anyone here in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. It is an abuse of time in this House under Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I think it is important to have the answers for the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I think the questions asked were of a very significant nature about GDP. It is not something that is in the normal vocabulary of everyone, but I think it is important to respond in a very clear way so I will continue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I reported in my mid-year economic statement just last week, the private sector forecasters predict real GDP growth in Newfoundland and Labrador to be at 4.5 per cent for next year. This is consistent with our view and will mark the fourth year of strong growth since 1997. Growth in 2002 will be concentrated in the oil industry, Mr. Speaker. The combined production from Hibernia and Terra Nova, should they increase, we expect White Rose construction to begin pending government approval and offshore exploration should increase.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite questioned the impact of lower oil prices on the Province's revenue stream. At budget time, the forecast for oil prices was at $23 U.S. a barrel. From April to October, the average price was approximately $27 U.S. per barrel. Without a doubt, the price of oil per barrel has fluctuated; however, we expect the price per barrel to average about $23 U.S. for this year, consistent with our forecast.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am proud to present another petition today in the House of Assembly on the bulk export of water from this Province, or against the bulk export of water from the Province. The prayer of the petition reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.

Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, this is an important petition signed by the people of this Province and you should listen.

Mr. Speaker, every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have presented a number of petitions on this very important issue. The people of this Province have spoken very loudly and very clearly on this issue, I say to the Premier and to the members opposite. This is an important issue. This is a resource that this Province has the ability to maximize full benefits for the people of the Province, the people who own the resource. We have the opportunity here, on this resource, to ensure that the people of the Province get the full benefit in terms of jobs, spinoff royalties, and everything else that goes along with this resource. We should not, in any way, shape or form, entertain bulk export of water from this Province. We have done that on other resources throughout the years. We have exported other resources in bulk, to see the major benefits go to others from outside the Province without getting the major resources for this Province. That formula has not worked over decades and decades of trying it. This time, Mr. Speaker, we should get it right.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act," carried.(Bill 52).

On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act," carried.(Bill 55)

On Motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 25, Mr. Speaker, the adjourned debate on Bill 36. I believe it was the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who adjourned the debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words at second reading on Bill 36 which is, An Act To Amend The Law To Consider Same Sex Cohabiting Partners In The Same Manner As Opposite Sex Cohabiting Partners.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was debated on Thursday when the minister spoke, and the Member for Lewisporte. The Member for Lewisporte, I think, pointed out that what the government was actually doing here was recognizing its obligations as had been outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada to the Province of Ontario in requiring that province, and by implication every province and jurisdiction, to ensure that the laws of the Province did not discriminate against same sex partners with respect to benefits and other issues.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has presented a piece of legislation. I think it has not had the kind of detailed study that perhaps it should have or may well have, although I hope it does get passed. It is one of those pieces of legislation that refers to a number of other pieces of legislation, including the Powers of Attorney Act, interesting the Conflict of Interest Act. What it does here is indicate that the conflict of interest legislation that applies to Members of the House of Assembly, that would apply in the case of cohabiting partners of opposite sex, would apply equally to same sex partners. That is clearly something that should be the law.

It is interesting, I suppose, and ironic in a way, that this law in fact places obligations on people or potential prohibitions on people as well as provides benefits to people. The contrast would be something such as the Conflict of Interest Act where I think it would be quite appropriate to recognize that a conflict of interest might just as easily exist with same sex cohabiting partners as with an opposite sex cohabiting couple. I think it is right and appropriate that it does.

I think, to be fair, Mr. Speaker, the advocacy groups for the community who are most interested in this have commented in presentations both to the minister and to other members of the House that they want to be treated, and same sex couples, to be treated equally with non-same sex couples with opposite sex cohabiting partners, and it is appropriate that there be responsibilities as well as benefits such as we see in other pieces of legislation such as the pensions legislations, the Memorial University Pensions Act, the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, the Pension Benefits Act, the Public Service Pensions Act, the Teachers' Pensions Act, the Workers' Compensation Act, the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, and the Municipalities Act, on a conflict of interest as well. Just as we saw the changes to the Family Law Act, these provided for support obligations for cohabiting couples and made the same obligations for support for cohabiting couples as existed for opposite sex cohabiting couples.

Also, it went further than that, Mr. Speaker, and permitted same sex couples to adopt the provisions of what used to be called the Matrimonial Property Act. It is now part of the Family Law Act in relation to property rights, co-ownership of assets, and provision for what happens to assets when the couple, or partners, separate. Provision can now be made to that extent.

There is one area, though, in discussions with the minister and his staff, that we had in discussion of this bill, was something that I want to speak about because it is something I believe a lot of people in this Province are misinformed about. Many people in this Province believe that if a couple live together for a specified period of time, depending on the person you are talking to, or depending on what their source of information is - and whatever source it is, it is incorrect - but depending on their source of information, many believe that if a man and a woman live together for a specified period of time, be it one year, two years, three years or five years, that gives them property rights with respect to the house they are living in or the property of the other spouse. That is a widespread belief in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: I think the minister knows that, as someone who has practiced law in the Province and who has encountered this belief. Certainly, it is something that I have heard many, many times. Even some lawyers who have not looked at the act but may have received their legal education in other Provinces may be of that belief as well. I say that not to be offensive to lawyers but just to suggest that, because other provinces have legislation of that nature, particularly the Province of Quebec and some others, many people in this Province believe that to be the law.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe it should be the law. I believe that we should have legislation that recognizes that when a couple are cohabiting in a relationship that is an enduring relationship of a specified number of years - I am not proposing a one-year, two-year or three-year rule at the moment, but I do think that there are many, many situations where young couples go into the purchase or the building of a house together; they share the cost. One family member or one family may have provided the land. Both couples, together, put their savings together, put their cash into the house, and that sort of thing. Only with respect to the complex law of constructive trusts do they have an interest in that property. I say complex because it is what quite often is factually and legally complex, and quite often the source of, as the Member for St. John's East points out, constructive trust litigations can take place where couples have to spend an inordinate amount of money to sort out their respective rights if the relationship does not work out.

I suggest to the minister that this may be an opportunity, although I realize we are not dealing with the family law aspect of this right now, but this may be an appropriate time, whether it be this fall or next spring, to consider amending the Family Law Act to provide for the circumstances where a couple who cohabit for a specified period of time, do enjoy the same rights with respect to property, particularly in a matrimonial home, so-called under the Family Law Act, but I assume we would have to rename what that home would be called if it was to apply both to cohabiting couples as well as to those who are actually married.

I think the time has come for us to revisit that law, to see whether or not we should adopt the same law as the Province of Quebec. I believe we should, Mr. Speaker, because we do have circumstances that go on in some cases for many, many years. Within the situation of a relationship, it is quite often difficult, after a couple of years have passed, for one partner - or sometimes the relationship may not be as rosy as people have thought going into it. There may be a situation where people cannot change that, where you cannot go to your partner and say: I want to put my name on the house now, after we have lived together for so many years, one year, two years, three years, four years. All of the sudden one member of the couple is starting to feel a bit insecure about their financial position or their relationship, or they are afraid they might get kicked out, for example, where the other spouse owns the house and they might be left with nothing. It can lead to situations where there can be abusive relationships that endure because of insecurities, in the same way that they happened before the Matrimonial Property Act gave equal rights to both partners in the matrimonial home.

That reform was brought in to recognize property rights, yes, and to recognize the equality of a relationship, yes, but also to ensure that both partners in a relationship had a stake in the home that they together maintained or contributed to in one way or another. You can contribute to a property and a home by maintaining it, by cleaning it, by assisting in its maintenance. You can go through the whole legalities of the constructive trust that people have talked about, or you can have a statutory recognition of the relationship and what flows with that. In this case, I would submit, a home that is the equivalent of a matrimonial home for a non-married but cohabiting couple in a significant relationship or in an enduring relationship.

I think that may, in fact, come as a shock to some people, Madam Speaker, if that were to be introduced, because it would mean that it does change the property relationships of longstanding couples, but I would think the time has come for our government to recognize that there is an expectation that people have in this Province, to recognize that there is some confusion about that, and to recognize, I think, that people believe it should be the law.

I think that the minister should take it under advisement, and I would submit that a time has come to change that law as well, so that cohabiting couples have access to property rights over the home which becomes their home, in a real sense, in an enduring relationship, whether or not they have gone through a form of marriage. That still seems to be the case.

I have not looked at each and every clause of this legislation. This kind of legislation tends to be quite complex because you are taking existing legislation and changing certain words, taking some words out and putting other words in. I know that the intent of the drafters of the legislation is that it provide for the treatment of same sex cohabiting partners in the same manner as opposite sex cohabiting partners. I am assuming that it does that with respect to each and every piece of the legislation that it affects.

I want to say, I go on record, Mr. Speaker, as supporting this legislation, as urging this legislation upon the minister and his government, just as we, for the last twelve or fourteen years, urged upon the government the passage of amendments to the Human Rights Code that would include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I know for many years, Mr. Speaker, under former administrations that were elected since 1989, the government refused to do that. The current Premier, numerous times, indicated that he did not think the government needed to do that or should do. We believed that it had to be done. The previous administration on that side passed legislation amending the Human Rights Code with the full support of our party, and at the urging of our party, to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is actually the outcome of a whole program of challenges by the group seeking equality rights for gays and lesbians, same sex couples. This legislation is part of the outcome of a number of years of challenging the law, and finally getting the Supreme Court of Canada to pass a law requiring that this type of legislation be passed.

So it is legislation that we support, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the minister to proceed with its implementation. Hopefully, we have done it all right in terms of the detail, but that is something we can discuss at third reading. I would urge the minister to also consider another step with respect to cohabiting couples, whether they are same sex or opposite sex, that cohabiting couple ought to obtain an interest, similar to that obtained by married couples, in the matrimonial home. I think it is something whose time has come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): If the minister speaks now, he does close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comments of the Member for Lewisporte, the justice critic, as well as the comments of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The government is, of course, and will continue to be, open to receiving input and suggestions and submissions from interested parties as to what in the future we may do or where we ought to go in regards to same sex legislation. However, I feel government has certainly made a major attempt and effort in the last two sittings of this Legislature to deal with these rights, particularly the amendments to the Family Law Act in the Spring sitting and now, in this particular session right here, particularly the rights concerning the pension benefits and issues. It is obviously an evolving area of the law, but I think it is a positive proactive step and, in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, it brings us in line with the Mv.H ruling. That is certainly a very positive move.

I look forward to any particular comments that members opposite might have in committee stage but it appears that all parties are supportive of this piece of legislation. Therefore, I move closing of debate on second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On Motion, a Bill, " An Act to Amend The Law to Consider Same Sex Cohabiting Partners In the Same Manner As Opposite Sex Cohabiting Partners" read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 36)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 16, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 31, An Act To Repeal The Economic Advisory Council Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Economic Advisory Council Act". (Bill 31)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to address Bill 31, An Act To Repeal The Economic Advisory Council Act, often referred to as ACE. As members of the House of Assembly will recall, the Advisory Council on the Economy was replaced in 1997 by a new body called the Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology. This combined both the Council of Science as well as Council of Technology and really it has a much broader mandate than the previous board of ACE.

This new board commenced operation in 1997 and it has already undertaken several substantial pieces of work, including advise on the economy, particularly renewing the EDGE program and also on taxation issues many of which have been acted on already in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. The Chair of the Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology is Mr. Peter Woodward of Happy Valley, Goose Bay, and he is joined with a number of other prestigious Newfoundlanders and Labradorians giving advise to government.

Mr. Speaker, since the elimination of ACE in 1997, the staff were transferred to the Executive Council and work is being undertaken to formally wind up the council. In December of 2000, approval was provided by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to ratify the transfer of the assets, and the final financial statements for the Advisory Council on the Economy were completed last year. While the Advisory Council on the Economy had its own staff, right now, Mr. Speaker, government is providing direct support to this new group through Executive Council, and they are able to draw upon the specific resources of Executive Council and government, as well as individual departments, on the various projects which they have undertaken. Mr. Speaker, the Advisory Council on the Economy was established by legislation in this House of Assembly, and that allowed this Advisory Council on the Economy to control its assets, the bank accounts and so on

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really being put forth at the recommendation of the Auditor General, and I understand how everyone has ultimate respect for the Auditor General and her recommendations in this hon. House.

It is with that, that I ask my colleagues today to support this bill, inasmuch as what it does is windup the old Advisory Council on the Economy and allows the other Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology to carry on its mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I would happy to answer any questions, but this is clearly in keeping with the recommendation of the Auditor General who wrote government July of this year advising that the Economic Advisory Council Act should be repealed in the House of Assembly as soon as possible so that it is able to go off the books, windup the accounts, and put everything in order.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think the minister intended that the Auditor General recommended and so on, not having an Advisory Council on the Economy. I think the intent was, because there is an Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology that we should not have a duplication or we should not have a second one. I think that would be the intent, because I think it is important for this government to have some advise on economic matters. In fact, I think you need it, to be honest with you. Yes, I think they need advise on economic matters, when you have a Premier who goes on the public airwaves on October 29 and tells us that the Newfoundland economy should not be adversely affected by terrorist attacks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier. It says: Grimes says, he doesn't think the downturn that is predicted elsewhere will occur here, and we have the minister on public airwaves telling us that it is going to have an effect. That is why there is the poor mouth on our budget and we are not going to meet expectations.

How can you have the Minister of Finance saying one thing and the Premier of our Province publicly saying something different? How does that help consumer confidence and encourage spending in our economy today, to be able to generate revenues in our Province?

The minister tries to say we said the sky is falling. Mr. Speaker, we have never said the sky is falling, and I would like to clarify that for the minister while we are on this matter. The minister said that we are saying the sky is falling. I said, if a possible $400 million deficit next year means the sky is falling, the sky is falling, because that is what we have. If the minister has any doubt about that, on November 21 with Jim Brown, the minister was asked this question - the announcer, Mr. Brown said: I just cannot help looking at these numbers again and think that the $400 million figure Loyola Sullivan talked about is not only possible, it is likely. Do you know what the minister said? Well, it is, certainly. She agreed with me.

MR. TULK: Who talked about it?

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister agreed, I say to the Deputy Premier, who is enquiring.

MR. TULK: It was the Member for Ferryland, not (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am quoting was is said here. The announcer indicated and made reference to me on suggesting a $400 million figure next year, and the Minister of Finance said: Well, it is, certainly. That is what she said. She agreed with me that it is possible. Here in print, I say to the minister. I will give her a copy if she does not already have one.

Now, the minister did not make reference to what the assets or what the liabilities were. This particular act here indicated that we "...wind up the Economic Advisory Council and vest its assets in the Crown." Clause 2 of the bill, "Notwithstanding subsection 16(4) of the Economic Advisory Council Act, title to all of the property and assets of the council, and the liabilities of the council, are vested in the Crown."

I think, in winding up, it is appropriate the minister should tell this House exactly what the assets are and what the liabilities are and what is involved here, if we are going to wind up an Advisory Council on the Economy. Now, if we broaden the scope of a committee and took in technology in other areas, it should not lessen in importance the value that an economic council serves. In fact, under this particular bill we are seeing certain responsibilities that this council had, and I do not know whether the minister does not think she needs any advice or whether the advice she received is not very good, because her predictions are not very accurate.

We said, not just last week, we said when the Budget was brought down, that this is not an accurate reflection of the revenues and expenditures of our Province, and we were proven right with time. We were proven right. Now we are seeing that the minister stood and delivered a financial statement of $80 million deficit, and we are saying that figure is not right. That figure is not right, we are saying. It is not a true reflection.

She tells us, by telling that, we are going to affect consumer spending. Look, I think the people of this Province want to know the truth, whether it is good news or whether it is bad news. That is what I am indicating. There is nothing going to affect consumer spending and confidence in our economy than the actions of the government of the day. That is what dictates consumer spending and confidence in our economy.

While we are on that topic, the minister said we are not going to move with the third year of tax cuts in January, 2002, because we cannot afford to do it. I say that we cannot afford not to. In fact, in the United States, and I will use that and look at the spinoff effects, on three previous cases in history in 1920. In 1920, the Harding, Coolidge government introduced one of the biggest tax cuts in history that resulted in the largest revenues coming in after taxes when people said, we will take less revenues.

John F. Kennedy, in1963, introduced a series of tax cuts and a naysayer said: Tax cuts are going to help out the rich. We are going to help the rich. Why give a break to the rich?

History showed that more tax revenue was taken in than ever before.

When Ronald Regan, in the 1980s, did the same thing, we saw collectively unprecedented growth in the economy, more tax revenues from income tax than before tax cuts. Even Gore has indicated that George Bush tax cuts are going to help out the rich. In fact, after tax cuts in U.S. history, 1 per cent of the richest people paid a higher per cent of the taxes and more taxes than they did after the tax cuts. What does it do? When you know you are not burdened with diminishing returns on higher levels, it encourages you to invest, to spend, to make more money, to pay more taxes, to grow the economy. We have to remove barriers to economic growth, and the biggest barrier to economic growth is taxation that is not conducive to growing the economy. We have to stop that small-mind mentality of short-term at the expense of long-term gain. That is the type of thing we have to do. We have to weather the storm in tough times, not pull into port. That is what we have done. This government has pulled into port and gone to the nearest dry dock and pulled up the boat in a tough storm, instead of weathering the storm and fighting it head on. That is what you have to do. When you stop fishing, production stops when you come into port. If you can weather the storm in tough times, we will ride the waves a helluva lot easier and be more prosperous in downturn.

Now, we find that some of the functions of the Advisory Council on the Economy respond to requests from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, of Cabinet, for commentary, evaluation, advice on subjects as chosen by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It said: Identify major economic issues which the Province must address.

I do not know who the minister is now taking advice from. I do not know. I can tell you one thing: it is not from the Board of Trade, when I saw the release that was released on November 21. Her advice is not coming from the Board of Trade, because they were on the same wavelength that we have been stating here. One reference here by the Board of Trade president who said, he has expressed concern for some time on the fiscal condition of the Province. He said, the apple has been polished too much, for too long. As a result, people believe the Province's financial condition is a lot better than it is.

I said the same things to that very same minister on the health care system year after year, and they denied there was a problem until they needed extraordinary measures and the Premier of the day, Premier Tobin, went to Ottawa with cap in hand, and said, we have a crisis in health care in our Province. I said, whoop-de-do! He finally knows that we have a crisis in health care in our Province now, and finally admits it when he wants something to fix it.

Denial, denial, denial is the approach that is going on in there. We have seen it today. Anyone who read the newspaper Saturday, executive director of the health boards, the hospital boards in this Province indicated this government does not have a plan. The Province does not have a plan to deal with health care; $1.4 billion in expenditures, a growing cost, and they do not have a plan, I have indicated. Can you imagine? They have no plan on how we want to bring this Province forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about your plan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't you worry about our plan. You ask the Premier of the Province to call an election and he will get a plan so fast it will knock him flat down on his back, I tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You tell him to call it and you will see a plan.

Can you imagine? That Premier sat in this House as a part of government since 1989 and he has sat in a Cabinet which made decisions over the downturn of our economy. For the first several years, we managed decline. We did not try to induce economic growth, we managed decline. Then we came to a new era in 1996, and what did we do? We borrowed on our children's future for five years. That was the plan. That is the plan that we have followed for the last five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Manage decline and borrow on your future. No wonder we are in the problem we are today. No wonder we are in the problem. No wonder the minister in this House cannot stand up and answer a question when I asked a simple, straightforward question: Your projection of 4.5 per cent on economic growth, was that made before or after the IMF indicated that Canada's growth is going to be 0.8 per cent next year, not 2.7 per cent, as earlier projected? The minister did not answer. Whether she did not want to answer, she did not want to admit, she had given us a statement that is not realistic, or she did not know the answer. One of two. I do not know what other reasons there could be.

I asked another simple question next, in which she stood today and answered the questions, not the questions I asked at all, completely unrelated to what I asked. The minister said in her statement, and we all have a copy of her statement here, and we have a copy of this review, a copy of the Economic Review, and this indicates that oil production next year will increase from 53 million barrels to 63 million barrels of oil. She said that growth is going to be concentrated next year in oil. That is what she said.

Last year, it tells us, consumer spending and so on, growth in retails, accounted for over half the growth in GDP, but next year she is saying it is going to be in oil. So, I asked her: Does that mean that consumer growth, spending and so on, is going to be down if it is going to be concentrated in oil?. She could not answer, or did not answer, because she wanted to avoid it.

I asked her last Thursday: What price per barrel of oil did they build into projections for next year? She did not answer. She did not answer it last Thursday. On Friday we heard nothing. She got up and answered the questions today in a statement. She said: I will table it. I will table the review at each price. She said last Thursday: I will table the projections at each price level.

I do not have that, and it has not been tabled today. I am looking forward to that. I would like to have a copy. I enjoy reading about economic matters, and where we are, because it is a concern. We need to know what we are basing projections on. We cannot go on a whim and a prayer, throw out a budget that gets you by a year and gets you in trouble at the end of the year. We have been too long putting our fingers in holes in the dike without fixing the dike, and we have to start doing something about it.

Some of the things that the Advisory Council on the Economy - their job was to monitor government economic policy and initiatives, and evaluate their effectiveness and potential. I can tell you, their policy has not been very effective. I do not know if the Advisory Council is telling the minister that their policies are not very effective, and they are not growing the economy. They must be, because I know some of the names of people who served and they are successful people in this Province, and I am sure they had good advice to give to the minister. I would wish that the good advice we get is heeded within the department and by the minister. Sometime I wonder if the advice is getting through. When you have the minister making a statement one day and the Premier making a diametrically opposing statement another day, you wonder who is making the economic decisions and the financial decisions in this Province today. I think we have a major problem.

I thought for a moment the Board of Trade might be giving her some advice, but I can see that they indicated in their release on November 21 - they went on to say: We are in a situation where programs are simply not sustainable because government does not have the flexibility to increase taxes or borrow more money. When do you not get the flexibility?

Let's look at the history of what this Province has done. Since 1996 or just slightly before, I think this was in 1993, when the former Minister of Fisheries and the candidate for the leadership and Member for Port de Grave - I think he was minister at the time in Works, Services and Transportation - stood in this House in answer to questions: We got $55 million from the federal government for the South Coast ferry service. We said that was enough money, that was put aside basically, to operate that ferry service on the South Coast. He said it was going to be put into a fund in perpetuity and the interest on that, in the vicinity of $5 million a year, will run that ferry service, because that is what the costs were. What did they do?

MR. BARRETT: What about the Roads for Rails Agreement?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that in a few minutes. Just give me time, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. One thing at a time.

We took the money and we spent it all over a period of a couple of years. It was all gone and every year we are having to pay for that service. Then they have come along with the Northern ferry service and they said: We will get a chunk of money in lieu to lift the federal government from their responsibility for delivering a ferry service to parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The concept was right, I agree, to put a good first-class highway across Labrador to hopefully eliminate the ferry service. What was wrong? One hundred and fifty million dollars too little. When it is finished, we will have a dirt highway, a gravel highway, except Goose Bay to Cartwright will not be connected, and we need a significant infusion of money. We still have to have a ferry service going into numerous areas. I can tell you, if you look at it, I am sure the cost of ferry service to Labrador has not diminished by very much at all, only a fraction of the $350 million we got. We did not solve the problem and we took a chunk of money. What happens when it is gone in another year or so? We will still have to service that, and that is the cost that we built in by relieving the federal government of their responsibility to deliver this service. That is what we have done, and it is not the only area in which we have done that.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am delighted for a road in Labrador, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains. I am delighted! I would love to see a highway connecting Labrador and I would like to see a link across The Straits that will bring us closer together, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what I would like to see. I think everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see a closer tie between Newfoundland and Labrador, geographically, physical ties whereby you can join Labrador, the mainland portion, to the Island. I think it would be positive. I think the spinoff effects for industry would be very positive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just look at PEI.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, look at PEI.

The next point I want to make: In Term 29, in 1996, we saw they were having problems, problems meeting budget expectations. Did they try to deal with them by growing the economy? No. What else can we pull out of the hat? What else can we rob from our children's future?

Well, we get $8 million a year forever, under Term 29, from the federal government, I think negotiated right back to John Diefenbaker's time. What happened? Eight million a year.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, whatever happened, it didn't work. There was a rule he made, that it could not be done. This was a guarantee.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. I agree. What did this government do of which you sat as a member? I am not sure but you sat in the Premier's office at the time, I say to the Minister of Works Services and Transportation, as Parliamentary Assistant.

What did we do? We said to the federal government and Paul Martin, Finance Minister, Premier Tobin at the time said: Give us twenty years' money upfront, give us $160 million. The federal government: Oh, no, you are not getting $160 million, because if we give it to you upfront we have carrying charges and things on that. We will give you $130 million upfront. So, they gave us $130 million upfront for twenty years. In1996 we were starting, and for the next seventeen years. It was used in three years and plugged into the Budget here. So after 1999, where are we? We are missing that $8 million every year in the Budget, the money is gone and we do not get any for seventeen years after. That is what happened. If that is not borrowing on your children's future, as in other areas, what is it doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did we pay the penalty.

MR. SULLIVAN: Basically, the penalty was we got $30 million less over the period of time. Basically that was the penalty we served, because they gave us $30 million less than we would have gotten if we had taken it on an annual basis.

Then we stood in this House and we said everybody would like to see lower taxes. We would like to see lower taxes in income tax because we think it stimulates the economy. We would like to see lower payroll taxes. That is a burden and that is an issue I will get to in another bill. I will get to this in another bill where they are changing the payroll tax now. They gave us a $500,000 exemption in the March Budget and now they are rolling it back in another bill before this House which I will leave for that time. I want to say that basically, as critic on it, my time is pretty extensive in responding here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that in a minute. One thing at a time.

We talked about retail sales tax and we said, when this government went to a harmonized sales tax we were told that, look, we have to start somewhere, we are going to bring all the provinces onside. We are going to bring New Brunswick onside, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and other provinces across the country. What provinces came onside? New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Thats it. Where did all the jobs go? Where is the centre for dealing with the HST? Prince Edward Island, the province that did not participate, got the jobs and we let it go. What happened? Our revenues were over $100 million less, and they stood in this House, the Premier and the minister, and said - and I happened to be Leader of the Opposition at the time and I said: the reduction will not -

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to cut out the tax for business?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Works Services and Transportation: You are on a different wavelength because I am not talking about that at all. I am on a different topic. I will get to your topic, if time permits. If I run out the hour of time that I have, I will do it another time.

Basically, we have talked about retail sales tax. I said: You will never get it back in revenues . They said: Oh, the economy will grow, and in two or three years we will get it all back, but we did not get it back. A lower tax is positive. I agree it is positive, and we did not expect it. Is it positive to reduce taxes? I agree it is positive to reduce taxes because history has proven time and time again that reduction in taxes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am getting to that point.

I have indicated that retail sales tax replaced with HST - there are only two other provinces. The whole country participated. It would have been better for the economy in Canada as a whole to have a harmonization of all provinces. It did not happen, it just did not happen. With regard to jobs, Prince Edward Island was the big beneficiary and they did not participate in this program.

Now, we have looked at numerous areas where we have taken money in the short-term to fix a hole. Sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, there are prices you are going to have to pay for shortchanging yourself in the future. The chicken have come home to roost now, because we are into a situation where we have built a major deficit in our Province and we have gone so far out on the limb that we cannot get back in. That has been very significant.

We have seen this government's very poor economic policy. We have seen very poor planning. Last year, and what they did in the Budget this year too - do not worry about future budgets, lets get through this one. That short-term thing is going to cost, because this year in our budget - we are using in this fiscal year, right now, $196.8 million in deferred revenue from last year. Some of it was carried from the previous year and so on, but in last year's Budget they carried over $196.8 million, because if we had to show that, we would have shown a big surplus. They did not want to do that. They wanted to show a different situation and they carried it into this year, and now this year we have $196.8 million that we are not going to have next year.

The minister said there is an $80 million deficit right now. We have $90 million when the next year of public sector wages kick in. That is another $90 million. Add all that up and we have almost $370 million. I understand there are cost-cutting initiatives going on in departments all over now, because they are having a job to stay within the budgeted amount here. So we are seeing $400 million. The minister on public airwaves indicated: Yes, it is, certainly. When they asked her if that $400 million I referred to was right, she agreed. She agreed in a conversation with Jim Brown. So she realizes we have a big problem. They should have realized and they should have listened, or they should have taken advice from somebody that would have prevented us from getting into this problem in the first place, because nothing beats proper fiscal planning for a government. When you are in government, you should do it, it is very important.

We do not have to see a need every four and five years, everybody up in a big fuss. We have to have a program review. Look, if we were carrying out the mandates of properly administering and running efficient departments, we would not have to have a major program review every so many years. We would be doing a on-going review every single year on efficiency and so on of public services, and proper utilization of the limited resources in times that we have available to us. That should not have to happen, I might add.

On top of this almost $400 million I referred to, we have other costs that haven't been looked at. I say to the minister: When this government introduced year one of the tax cuts and year two of the income tax cuts, this government went from $545,057,000 in revenues under income tax to $620,900,000. An increase of $65 million in income tax went into the coffers of this Province in the tax cuts than went in before.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is because we grew the economy.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly! Because we grew the economy, someone said. That is exactly it. Because when you reduce taxes, you lift the burdens, you encourage jobs and growth, you grow the economy, and that is what we are talking about. I hope they now get the message, because they did not get it before. That is the exactly the reason, and the thing I have been saying. You cannot put a damper on consumer spending and growing the economy by negative - we have stagflation. This minister is presiding over stagflation in our economy. That is basically what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is stagflation. It is a common economic term. I say, that is what is happening here. We cannot be going on this path continuously, fixing a hole here and fixing a hole there. We have to have a particular plan.

Now, that $400 million deficit she is talking about, and that she admits on the public airwaves, Mr. Speaker, that she agrees with me on, I say it is worse than that. We haven't even talked. What she has tried to do is, she has tried to tell us that the health boards in this Province, the community health boards and institutional boards, are not a part of our financial statements, we do not count their deficits. That is wrong. We fund health care boards. The Minister of Health and Community Services appoints members to those boards. The minister, technically, can hand-pick every member who sits on a health care board in this Province. The minister approves everything, and funds them; and then to tell us that they are not part of our Province's finances.

Right now, health care boards, institutional boards, have told government that the $50 million we got this year, that the Minister of Health and Community Services talks about, is money to pay for services that we got last year. That is to pay for services we had last year, not this year. When you look at it now, health care boards, institutional boards, are telling government: We cannot operate without $18 million more. Community health care boards are between $6 million and $7 million. That is $24 million to $25 million that they need, over and above what they were given, to be able to give the same level of service.

The department came back and said: Bring in the people with the knives and the axes and start cutting. Come back to us and show us the plan as to how you are going to recoup that.

They came back to government and one corporation here, the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, said: We cannot find it. There is about $6 million of that we just cannot find.

Basically what they said was - Mr. Peddle, who is executive director - here are the options we have. You tell us where you want to cut, what programs and what services you want to cut, and what layoffs.

Just to get $1.8 billion, there are forty-three layoffs in health care. How do you get $6 million more? Basically, we have an overrun this year. Even if they reach the knife cutting this year with dozens if not hundreds of job layoffs, we are still not going to meet their expectation of recovering that twenty-four. On top of that, there are deficits from the past years they have not dealt with. There is $80 million of that accumulated over the past few years, on top of that. That is not counted on our Province's debt. They do not count that. In fact, what are they starting to do now? Here is a very serious problem. They are being told, I understand, they are starting to convert some of that deficit and refinance it as long-term debt. What does that do to you?

Look at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, which is already financed $100-some million on the Janeway, and the changes with the closure of the Grace and renovations at St. Clare's and the Health Sciences Complex to accommodate it. They are going to refinance. What do you do when you refinance, if you have to refinance $10 million, for example? You have to pay the principle back, you have to pay interest on that, so that is less interest coming out of your operation and that gives you less for services next year, and we are into a never-ending vicious cycle of less disposable money to be able to do the job. That is what is happening here. You are putting off on the backs of your children what we should be facing up to as responsible men and women today, and not transferring a debt to the future because the future is heavily enough indebted in our Province. God help us, we are approaching close to almost $10 billion, $8.5 billion in direct public debt in the Province. They are not facing up to the debts. We have to.

I am not saying that we have to eliminate the debt, because if our economy grows and our GDP grows, the debt becomes less significant if you can hold the debt in line. If you have a debt of $8.5 billion today, in twenty years' time it is less significant and therefore you have command of it, so it is basically the percentage: your debt in comparison to your GDP, as a percentage of GDP.

In fact, if you look at some other countries of the world, Canada's GDP per capita was 2.5 that of Ireland. It used to be two-and-a-half times the GDP per capita of Ireland. Today, Ireland's per capita GDP is greater than Canada. Can you imagine? What a tremendous turnaround! How did they do it? They were told, if you cut taxes, we are going to lose revenues. Young people were leaving to go to Canada and elsewhere to get jobs. Today, they are coming back because they dealt with it. Taxation is one thing, and education is another aspect of theirs, but I will deal with taxation today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am talking about taxation generally, yes. There are other issues of taxation. We could get into corporate and different types of taxes. I am talking about general taxation, the tax burden, because if there is a burden on a corporation, it is a cost to a corporation. If it is a burden on an individual...

Consumer spending is obviously very much tied to personal disposable income. That is basically what it is tied to, and personal taxes have a greater impact on taxes in that particular area than businesses; but I will add, while we are on the business end of it, that payroll tax, for example, is a tax on jobs. It is as simple as that. Can we afford not to have it? Can we afford to have it? These arguments can go on and on, but payroll tax is a burden.

We have moved and we have been calling for, and government has responded, making exempt over $100,000 up to $500,000, and what did they do? They sneaked a little bill in this House - I know you do not want to use the word sneak, but they put a bill in this House, you can use what term you want - and they have a bill in now that says we are going to roll back that $500,000 of exempted income now to $475,000 this year. It is another regressive step.

There is a bill before this House, the Minister of Finance should be aware, under the minister's heading. I will just find that bill for her, in case she does not know what I am talking about, and I will give her the bill number. It is Bill 28, I say to the minister, in case the minister is wondering. In Bill 28, here is what it says in the Explanatory Note provided under the minister's signature, "This Bill would amend the Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act to increase the remuneration threshold above which tax is imposed to $500,000. For the balance of the 2001 taxation year the threshold would be $475,000."

In your backgrounders to your notes in the Budget - I went back and reviewed them - it is indicated that the threshold is going to be $500,000. This is not legislation stemming to implement a budget; this is a change in your budget figure that you gave. Some of the revenue that you gave in March, you are taking back in November. That is what that is. That is basically what it is. If the minister is not aware of it, she should get familiar with it very soon because she will soon be called to introduce it here in this particular House.

We have looked at numerous particular areas of finance and what we have to do - I was reading this article, this release that came out, and the president of the St. John's Board of Trade - it is something we have been saying over and over again - said, "Historically, governments of this Province, by continual deficit spending have accumulated debt, which is now crippling the ability to respond to current program needs." Because you have, in other words, put yourself in a corner, you have put yourself up against the wall, you have taken away your manoeuverability in times to be able to deliver the programs we want to see delivered. "The ‘spend now and pay later' philosophy of passing the financial burden on to future generations has caught up with us. The future is here and we must deal with the issues by cutting costs now. Unfortunately, the timing for this type of policy directive from government is very poor".

In other words, you have to deal with a problem, but there is a better way. Not having to deal with a problem is by proper planning to eliminate or to lessen the magnitude of that problem, and that is called proper planning, having a plan to deal with it. Do not budget on the optimistic side. I still say to the minister that I think she is budgeting on the optimistic side and we could be back here with a poor mouth statement in February or March again, telling us: Oh, look. We have underestimated the effect of September 11. We did not think it was going to impact as much. The Premier said it was going to have no impact. We underestimated the slowdown because the U.S. economy to the Canadian economy, there is a lag quarter into the Canadian economy and there is a further lag into the Newfoundland economy. When it starts to rebound again, the U.S. economy picks up the lag, it is slower in kicking in, and if it kicks in over all, even in the second quarter of next year in the U.S., it will be further down the line before we start to reap the benefits of it. That happens. That happens with the giant U.S., with ten times the Canadian economy and our Newfoundland economy. While we are removed, geographically, we are depending very much on the export commodities in the United States and there is a lot of dependence on the world economy.

There is no economy in a global market today untouched, parochial in a view, and isolated from impacts. They are there because we are dealing with international trade today. We cannot close ourselves in and think that we are not touched by it.

The Premier should go back to his council and get some advice on these particular issues because he certainly has not articulated that to the public and put any confidence in consumers in this Province to encourage them to spend. That has to happen.

People have said that historically when you give the rich a tax break, they hoard it up and they keep it. It has not proven correct. It has proven that they increase spending, that they are more liberal in their spending habits, they spend more money, they create more jobs because, when you loosen the purse strings, you increase the spending. It is an extra job in that department store, it is another ten in another store, it is three more down the road. To the small grocery store out in the community, it is one extra employee. All of these add up, all of these people pay taxes, all of these people are less of a burden then on certain programs, certain social programs of our Province, because they have an income and they have an insurance plan. By the way, that is another area. If there are more people working, there are more people with insurance plans.

Over 30 per cent of health care today is privately paid for. It was only 25 per cent back in the 1980s. We are moving into a health care system now that is almost one-third privately funded. We are talking about, and I read today, the biggest, I guess, impediment to getting a publicly-funded system is that the Government of Canada is one who is most detrimental in destroying our five basic principles of our Canadian health system.

Most people are fairly familiar with them. For anybody who is not uniquely familiar, comprehensiveness is one of the ones now that is being discussed on a national level; we have a universality of that program, all across this country you should be able to participate; support ability, the right for people in one province to another to be able to avail of that system; public accountability of the system and we have accessibility, the five basic principles upon which it is founded. The Prime Minister and his government today are seriously threatening that. They are seriously threatening that by not providing to the people of this Province and not fulfilling their commitment to allow people under equalization to be able to provide a comparable level of public services at comparable levels of taxation.

In fact, I think it is a violation of our constitution. It was enshrined in our constitution, and tying the hands of a province that has a large geography and a small population, that is an issue that I think this government should be standing up, taking on the federal government on constitutional grounds, taking the government to court on constitutional grounds, that they are not providing the comparable levels of service and the comparable levels of taxation in compliance with our 1982 constitution. It is not there. They have kept equalization on those grounds. They have kept equalization and they throw a whole pot. What happens when the pot stays the same and disparities get greater? You do not have the money to close the disparities, and disparities between us and other provinces of this country are getting greater and greater and greater.

If you do not have a publicly-funded system today, you are in big trouble. If you do not have a system there, people cannot afford it. I will use an example of someone from my district who has to go to Toronto for a kidney transplant. Basically, they went out and had a fund-raiser and bought tickets. They bought tickets to go on Canada 3000. The family, the donor, the recipient - actually, the donor was paid. The donor was paid through a government (inaudible). I will not get into the specifics. The recipient had to buy the ticket, and the parents and so on, to accompany that person. Canada 3000 went under. They lost it and now they have to try to come up with the money on their own. There is nothing that can be done. I have pursued it right to the corporate office of Air Canada. There is nothing to help them. They have to go out and try to get the money to get there.

Why isn't the recipient, why isn't the person who needs that, covered? If our Province cannot provide a medical service, a kidney transplant that will allow that person to live a normal life, shouldn't there be a program? If we cannot provide a service, should there be a responsibility that we should be able to provide an avenue to be able to get that service? That makes common sense.

This family now has been in stress over the past couple of weeks, from phone calls back and forth, speaking with myself. I know our health critic has spoken with the family and they have gone through numerous efforts to try to be able to have that go ahead on schedule over the next couple of weeks.

This comes back to fundamental problems because we are not managing our affairs, we are not freeing up dollars. Some of the things said by the Board of Trade and others is that we have boxed ourselves into a corner, we have lessened our ability to provide programs to people in our Province. Proper planning allows you to look at your priorities in programming; it allows you to deliver these basic programs. We are into a debate over what is funded by private and what should be medically insured services that are covered under our public services. We are getting into a big array of services in our Province that might be covered in one province and not in another. We are getting down to what is discretionary, what is essential. There is a whole argument that has been going on, on this particular issue.

I am going to get to a conclusion in my comments on this bill. It is not what legislation is; it is what you do with the legislation you have. If you have a committee in place to advise government, if they are going to advise government on the economy, identify major economic issues out there, report to the Cabinet through the Premier of this Province, what is wrong with our economy? Is a committee that is appointed by the Premier going to report back? Is the Premier going to take advice? If he does not like the advice, he does not have to take it. He can compile a committee that will give him the advice he wants. I think what we need is advice, or we need people in the position who are going to heed good economic advice and get this Province on the road to recovery, and stop thinking short term, short-sightedness, and look at the overall direction we are going to go in the long term, and get this Province on the road to recovery, and do not do it by robbing our children's future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I know the Minister of Finance is anxious to wind up debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, good. I have a few things to say about economic advice, I guess. I am going to talk about in general, because this government and I suppose the predecessor government of the same stripe, and the predecessor government of the same stripe starting in 1989, have had a lot of economy advice. Of course, governments of this Province over the years have had economic advisors, going back to Valdmanis. I remember the name back in the early fifties, economic advisor. The Minister of Economic Development was an economic advisor to the government, and it goes right on down through the years, receiving economic advice.

The Economic Advisory Council was set up to provide economic advice to the government, but I want to say that economic advice or economics in general is largely about choices. It is called a science. Some say the dismal science, economics, but they call it a science. It is really about choices, about what kind of society you want to create and what kind of things you would have to do to create it.

There are obviously technical aspects to it in terms of measuring economic growth, measuring GDP, measuring various things, quite often the wrong things, I would say, Madam Speaker, or emphasizing the wrong things, emphasizing growth as opposed to social and economic equality in your society, for example.

You know, we often talk about the GDP. The GDP is down to 2.4 per cent from 2.8 per cent, as if this is a real measure of what people's lives are like. You know and I know that real life, and how people live in this Province, is not largely affected by a change in a percentage point or two in the GDP. It is not largely affected by that very much, from one month to the next. It may over the long term, obviously, have serious effects, but quite often the economic decisions that are made by governments, whether they be provincial or federal, are based on ideology, on myths in many cases. We have, for example, people who put themselves forward as economic advisors. We have the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, for example. They have set themselves up. I do not know exactly who is funding them. I suspect it is a number of corporations who have a particular point of view of how our economy should run. Really, they have a particular point of view of how our economy should make it easier for corporations to make profits regardless of the consequences to individuals. So they have a particular point of view.

Let me give you a example of the point of view. The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies is referred to - I could use the term, too, as a right-wing think tank, but - it was often referred to by the media as a right-wing think tank. Perhaps they should always preface any statement coming from them as coming from a right-wing think tank. Otherwise, people might be confused and think that this is sort of an objective statement coming from an economist.

I want to talk about the statement, for example, made by a gentleman who I believe is the executive director of this right-wing think tank, Brian Lee Crowley. He is the executive director of an economic think tank called by the CBC on November 14 on the Here and Now program as a right-wing think tank based in Halifax. This is one that a former leader of this party, Peter Fenwick, I think, went to work for a few months before he ran for the Canadian Alliance Party. That will give you an idea of how much of a right-wing think tank it is, Madam Speaker, because as Bill Rowe, a former member of this House, on Open Line has often said about the former former leader of this party - he hasn't been leader for fifteen years, or maybe it is more like, let's see, going back to 1989, so at least a dozen years - but Mr. Bill Rowe is fond of saying to him that he had gone from the left of Lenin to the right of Attila the Hun in a very short period of time. I do not think he was ever to the left of Lenin but he certainly came across with some very right-wing views about economics, about social issues, and even about the kind of issues I am going to talk about here today; because when we talk about economic advice and choices that people make, one of the things - the GDP might not affect people very much in rural Newfoundland, Madam Speaker, but I will tell you one thing that does: unemployment insurance.

Unemployment insurance, and unemployment insurance policies, affect people in rural Newfoundland. It is very important to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is an area that is a part of economic policy, and the right-wing economists and the right-wing economic advisors have very strong views on unemployment and unemployment insurance.

Let me tell you what Brian Lee Crowley said on CBC Here and Now on November 14, 2001. The announcer says, "Brian Lee Crowley is with a right wing think tank based in Halifax. He insists the problem in rural communities is not a shortage of jobs, but a shortage of people willing to work." This is an observation of this economist: "...is not a shortage of jobs, but a shortage of people willing to work."

Now, the Member for Baie Verte, who is a member for rural constituents says: What? He cannot believe it. He cannot believe that somebody would say that. Well, they will say it, Madam Speaker, because they have a particular point of view, and I want to say that an economist is not an economist as such but is an economist with a point of view, and Brian Lee Crowley has a particular point of view. Here is what he says, and I am quoting from him now, "It's pretty clear that there are lots of work opportunities in rural communities. It doesn't mean that they're all full-time, high wage, unionized jobs, I'm not suggesting that. But there are clearly lots of employment opportunities that are not taken up in rural communities precisely because people have access to Unemployment Insurance." So, he has a solution: limit access to unemployment insurance.

That is an economic decision by an economic advisor, some of the kind of people who would be on this Advisory Council, people who think that the solution to economic growth is to be have low wages, to have half-starving people - and I will get to the half-starving part in a moment because there are other economic advisors who talk very close to that line. The solution of Brian Lee Crowley and the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies is to make it tougher to get EI. Now, this is said in 2001. This is after the cuts that have been made to UI in the 1990s by the Liberal government in Ottawa that reduced, and the previous Conservative government together, but the combined effort of these two governments have reduced the number of people eligible for unemployment insurance, or employment insurance they call it now, thinking that makes a difference, from 83 per cent of the people who were unemployed qualified for unemployment insurance back in 1988, now it is down to less than 36 per cent, almost only one-third. Two-thirds of the people who are unemployed today do not qualify for unemployment insurance, but that is not enough for these guys. These guys think that the real problem is that people have too easy access to EI. This is what Mr. Crowley thinks: At least three years of work before first timers can claim EI.

That is a great solution, Madam Speaker, that we should make people work for three full years before they can get access to the unemployment insurance program. That is going to somehow or other solve our economic problems. That is going to solve our economic problems by saying to people: if you can get a job for three years, you can collect EI. That is a solution that these economists have.

There is another person. I guess we can have a little quiz here. Who said this? I want to quote, and this is a suggestion to have a guaranteeing of basic income, "The idea is to provide enough income that people are not going to starve, but they're not going to be able to have any kind of a real lifestyle just on that basis." Imagine, this is an economic advisor, Madam Speaker. This is an economic advisor who advised this government for years. He advised this government for years. He was closely associated with this government's economic policies for years. I want to ask you, who do you think that is? Here is the direct quote, I will give it to you once again. On Here and Now on November 14, 2001, "The idea is to provide enough income that people are not going to starve, but they're not going to be able to have any kind of a real lifestyle just on that basis."

That is a statement made on TV in November by Doug House; Doug House, who advised this government for years. Now we are told he is advising other people. I understand he is advising the caucus that sits in Opposition here today. When you look to economic advisors and economic plans, you have to be very careful of what those plans are and what they are going to do because economic decisions are about choices. I would caution people to be concerned about solutions that come from people who are trying to do a quick fix on the economy without recognizing or without taking into account all of the problems that we have.

The major plan, and this is a plan that goes back some years so I am not suggesting that - perhaps Mr. House does not even agree with it any more. Here is what the reporter says, "Doug House doesn't look like a radical, but he's come up with a revolutionary alternative to EI. Under his plan, the government would guarantee everyone a basic annual income, whether they're working or not."

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that basic annual income would be so low that although people would not starve, as he says, they would not have any real life at all. What would be the effect of that?

Here, I suppose, we can rely on economists to tell us because that kind of a plan, that kind of approach, that kind of attack on people's incomes by reducing their access to benefits such as unemployment insurance, by reducing their access to income, by putting them close to starvation, that is based on somehow the problem being the worker, the problem being the individual who has no control over the economy at all, when in reality the problem is the problem of those who are designing society and creating systems of inequality.

Economists who are applying the tools of economics to that kind of a plan will tell you that the effect of that kind of a plan is in fact to lower everybody's wages. You end up lowering everybody's wages. You drive incomes down, you force people into poverty, you hurt people. That kind of a plan actually hurts people. That is what economists who will use the tools of economics will say; this is what the effect of Doug House's plan would do.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I said it twice. I am just going to quote. This was the alternative to UI. Under his plan, the government would guarantee a basic income whether they are working or not. Here is the direct quote, "The idea is to provide enough income that people are not going to starve, but they're not going to be able to have any kind of a real lifestyle just on that basis." That is Doug House. That is the man who was the economic advisor to your government for a number of years, and I understand is now advising the Opposition.

I just say that economics is about choices, and the choice that has to be made in an economy, Madam Speaker, is whether you are going to move towards greater equality or whether you are going to move farther away. We here solutions coming from both sides of this House, I would submit, Madam Speaker, that the way to improve our economy is to give tax breaks, income tax breaks, primarily to wealthy people. That is designed as a way to stimulate the economy. On the other end of the social scale, they want to remove benefits from those who are desperately in need of them. If you say, you cannot cut that, you cannot cut employment, you cannot cut Workers Compensation benefits, you cannot cut EI, they say: Oh, well we cannot afford it. All they can afford, apparently, is income tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy which has the effect of increasing inequality in our society and hurting people.

Not only that, I have to say this - and this is why economics is important. I am inviting you, Madam Speaker, or anybody in this House who wants to have copy of it, to look at economic studies of what has happened in this country as compared to other countries in the last ten years. What we have seen in Canada is a greater level of inequality based on a reduction in social programs and a reduction in taxes for those who are well off. In other countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, they have economies that are more social democratic, perhaps have higher taxes, but have greater levels of social equality and social benefits. We have almost no child poverty, a prosperous economy. It is not a choice between having the economy run well and be prosperous and having good benefits. That is not the choice, Madam Speaker. The choice is between greater equality in your society and lesser equality.

Our country, our Province and our governments are going the way of the United States and saying: The solution here is to stimulate the economy by tax cuts which benefit the wealthy, and to say then that we have no money to spend on social programs. That is what happened in Ottawa in the last ten years, Madam Speaker. The guts were taken out of social programs by the Tory and Liberal governments in Ottawa - mostly Liberal as it turns out since 1993 - the guts were taken out of social programs on the basis that it was causing the deficit, which has not been proven at all.

The effect, though, has been to have greater inequality, more people being hurt, basic rights, such as affordable housing being unattainable by far too many people in this country, and child poverty increasing by 50 per cent since 1989 instead of going down. You have other countries with similar size economies able to have a child poverty rate of 3 or 4 per cent, such as Denmark, even while we are going through recessions.

Economics is about choices, Madam Speaker. I suppose you can choose your advisors too. If you want to have advisors that are going to show you how to create a more egalitarian society, you can do that. If you want advisors who are going to try and be social engineers and say that the way to get people to work in rural Newfoundland is to put them to a point of near starvation, or to cut back their benefits, like Brian Lee Crowley is suggesting and like Doug House is suggesting, well, that is a choice that a government or a party is going to make. I want to say this, that this party would never, ever, ever approach this in this way because it is not the way of improving society, it is not the way to stimulate an economy, and it is not the way to achieve prosperity. It is a myth that the choice is between social benefits and economic prosperity because countries have proven that you can have economic prosperity. Even in the face of globalization, and so-called global forces, you can maintain your economic prosperity and maintain social and economic equality that we do not have in this country. We do not have it here because we are starting to make the move towards the Americans.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal wants to speak, I am sure he will have a moment to do that when I finish. I know he is interested in this issue and I know he had a good relationship with the economic advisors of his government. I am sure he would be prepared to defend what his government has done in the past.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I will not be rising too often on a point of order while he is speaking, because you should not, but I do want to clarify this point to him. I know he is over there trying to play both sides of the fence. I do want to say to him, that the person who has been recently hired by the PC party, as a policy advisor, Dr. Doug House - I understand that is the case, I could be wrong, but I understand that is the case - has not been working for this government. I have no problem telling you about (inaudible). I can show you the report if you want. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. House has not been, I do not believe since Mr. Brian Tobin became premier - no, he hasn't, he hasn't been-

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What's wrong, Paul? Paul, why are you so nice to Brian Tobin in front of his face and so nasty behind his back?

The truth of the matter is, that Dr. Doug House has not been employed by this government for well over six years, and we have made great economic progress in that time. I have to say to the hon. gentleman, that I am surprised he made that kind of statement, that he is willing to pay the people a guaranteed annual income to keep them from starving, but not enough to give them any sort of life style. That surprises me.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I note that my time is quite limited. I think I have a minute to clue up, and I will do that by saying - by leave, if I am able to get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I will spend a couple of minutes.

I hope I am not misquoting Dr. House. This is from a media consulting communications company who has a transcript offered and Dr. House is quoted here as saying that. It is a surprising comment, because it is a sort of form of social engineering that I think is very misplaced and narrow and, really, the assumption on that is that people need somehow or other to be reduced to a state of near poverty in order to provide an incentive to work. That is not the way we build a society that is equal, Madam Speaker. We build a society that is more equal by increasing the minimum wage, by, as my colleague from Labrador West said, starting to base the minimum wage, not on some incremental dollar value that keeps always lagging behind inflation and incrementally climbs up, but rather basing it on a percentage of the average industrial wage or a percentage of the average unionized wage.

It is shown by economic studies - and I am going to talk about economic studies - that, in fact, the increase in the minimum wage produces more jobs because that money is already automatically circulating. It does not depress jobs, it produces more jobs, and better than that, it produces better lives for people who get the minimum wage. It produces better health care for people and healthier life styles for people who get the minimum wage. It makes their kids have a better attitude towards life and in school. It improves society in general.

What we need to do, Madam Speaker, is not pick one group from society and say we are going to push him down a little more, in hopes to make them work hard or make them do something, and at the same time make things easier for the rich by having tax cuts on income tax. What we need to do is move people closer together so that the people who are at the bottom are better off than they are now, even if it is at the expense of those who are wealthy. That's what we need to do. We have to have more equality because we are going to have a more prosperous society. I do not think there is a choice between one or the other. We are going to have a more prosperous society and, more importantly, we are going to have a more equal society.

That is the kind of advice that I want to give to this government and I want to give to any government. That's what we should do, Madam Speaker. That's what we should do, not look for solutions that ignore the reality of people's lives on the basis of some economic theory.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

May I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

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

When she speaks now, she will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure today to speak about the bill on the Order Paper which I think is important to mention because the debate does tend to stray form time to time. This is a bill to talk about winding up the Advisory Council on the Economy.

Now, Madam Speaker, there have been a number of interesting points made today, some true, some not true. I think one of the things that we would like to clarify is the information that is before the people of the House of Assembly today. I think it is important to speak to those.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to say that in order to grow the economy in the short-term, hearing from economists right across this country, there are two ways to do it. You can do it in the short-term or you can do it in the long-term. The belief, Madam Speaker, is that unless you have huge and significant amounts of money to inject into your economy, you are not able to grow your economy in the short-term. Madam Speaker, I want to say again, quite clearly -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the member opposite, from Ferryland, that I listened attentively to every word and I look forward to him listening to my commentary as I try to respond and inform the people of the Province about these very important issues.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this government does not only speak for the rich when it talks about tax cuts, as the member opposite referred to, we speak for all the people in the Province. We believed, and we live to our commitment in telling the truth, that when we delivered the Budget Speech last year, it was very clear that we would continue to implement our three-year tax reduction program if we could afford it. Now, Madam Speaker, we have put over $200 million back into the economy, but we are not foolhardy enough to believe that for every dollar you put back in, you get it back in growth. We know, in fact, that tax cuts are only a part of a growing economy; a part that must also include diversification of the economy. It must also include a strong economy, high consumer confidence, and we have been privileged and worked very hard in this Province, Madam Speaker, to try to engender that kind of consumer confidence and that kind of strength.

Madam Speaker, I will speak a little bit in a while about some of the platforms that we have just heard most recently from the Member for Ferryland and the finance critic on what he would do in the situation. As I said last week, it is good to finally smoke him out on at least one policy.

Madam Speaker, as we move along, I would like to say, again, that it is important, that the two years of the tax cuts were imposed because we felt we could afford it and we believe it continues to grow the economy in this Province. We have been very clear from the beginning that we are not cancelling it, we are deferring it until we are able to assure the people of the Province that it is the best way to do it economically, and we will do it.

We have been clear - and the member opposite said about, you know, telling the truth. We have told the truth. We told the truth to the people of this Province when we were thinking about deferring the tax cuts. We came out publicly and talked about that. When we got the information from the federal government about a decrease in the CHST and the equalization payments so we can deliver our own health and post-secondary programs, we told the people of the Province. We are telling the truth, but as is quite commonly known from a very popular movie: He can't handle the truth. That is what we have been doing. We have been telling the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the member opposite, and today in Question Period we were asked about our health care plan, we know what our plan is. I would like to hear at least one of your plans. Come on, give us something. Give the people of the Province something. We have a plan. My colleague has been all around the Province speaking to people about health care and consulting, and it is working, again, much to the chagrin of the people opposite.

I, too, would like to refer to comments made by the President of the Board of Trade. I notice that the member opposite likes to pick bits and pieces out that really fit into his speech. Well, I would like to say, commenting from Mr. Wilson, the President of the Board of Trade. He says: We haven't called for drastic measures. What we have called for, obviously, is a need, as the minister has already said, for a whole series of measures. He goes on to say: We are not recommending big cuts here. What we are actually recommending in our press release is that the government should partner or form partnerships with business and labour to address these economic situations in a manner which really enables everyone to have significant participation in trying to respond to these challenges.

Now, it depends how you read it, it depends on the message. Our message is that the sky isn't falling. Our economy is growing and, as the member points out, the Canadian economy is experiencing a different situation right now than our own provincial economy. We are not seeing the impact at this moment that they are seeing in the country as a whole. What we are predicting is that there may be a lag. There probably will be a lag. It is quite possible because we are part of a federation, we are a part of Canada, and we are impacted by what happens in this country.

We have told the truth. We have given all the accurate information that we have at this time. I apologize to the Member for Ferryland that it is not more negative and that I cannot concur that the sky is falling, because it is not. The sky is not falling. Anyway, perhaps the member opposite would like to apply for the Christmas Grinch because it fits right in with his whole scenario of negativity, negativity and more negativity.

The confidence of the consumers in this Province is strong and we will continue to promote that. We look at some of the highest employment levels that this Province has seen. Are they my numbers? No, they are from Stats Canada. Again, they are actually addressing the highest employment levels we have seen since 1989.

Our housing starts have increased. That is a positive sign. It is hard to take, but it is positive. Our confidence in our own economy is good. We hope that it will not be impacted. Will it be impacted by what is happening in the Canadian economy because of our inter-relationship with the U.S.? That is possible, and as we get the information, the best information we have, we will share it just like we have at the very beginning. We will tell the truth, if the members opposite can handle it.

Is it Utopia? No, and we will not say it is. We will continue to work hard to diversify the economy. We will continue to work hard to grow the confidence in our economy in this Province, and that is our job. From time to time, it would not hurt the members opposite to try to do the same thing too, because it is important for our economy. We invite them to do that, because the good things are happening.

Now, let's talk a little bit about the comments about the payroll tax, that he made earlier, trying to do this old famous fearmongering routine that he is famous for, that we are not providing the cut in the payroll tax that we promised in the Budget. That is not accurate, and the members opposite know. They were grinning as they were talking about it, because they know the difference. They realize that our Budget is April 1. It is three months in, after three months, at the beginning of the fourth month into the calendar year. So obviously with only nine months left to the fiscal year, the amount of the reduction is based on nine months over twelve, nine twelfths of the calculation. The member opposite knows it but never misses an opportunity to fearmonger; never misses an opportunity to try to say the sky is falling. We would not want to have confidence in our economy now, would we? Of course not, no.

In fact, over here we will live to the commitments we read in the Budget about the payroll tax, and the member opposite knows. If the member opposite was to look at how it was written last year, it is the same way. There is no rollback of the payroll tax. There is no intention here to do anything other than what we said. The intention opposite is to fearmonger and try to instill into the business community some fear or some doubt that we have not done this, and once again it is not accurate. It is as it states in the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: One of the things that I am really looking forward to speaking about today is, it is always easy when you are in opposition to criticize, particularly when there are no solutions. From the dissertation that the member gave, did anyone out there hear one possible solution? I did not, and I listened attentively; not one solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Did anybody out there hear about a plan, whether it was for health care or anything else? I did not hear it. Maybe I missed it, but I was listening attentively. Because there is no plan, and it is very easy to criticize when there is no plan and there are no solutions.

I really enjoyed the questions from the health critic today, the member for Clarenville, who voted for our budget over here, who voted on our plan -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It was interesting to watch because the very plan that we put forward based on our Strategic Social Plan was the very one he voted on, but I guess it depends on where you sit and what you believe in and what you vote on, and I am sure the people have seen that today in the Province.

We know what our plan is. Our plan is about $1.4 billion in a health care system which we are very proud of, which we have continued to grow every year, including in the last budget year $50 million more into health care. We know what our plan is. Can we improve upon it? Absolutely. That is why we are going as the recommendations from the Board of Trade, the president, had suggested, and what we do as part of our Strategic Social Plan: We are going to the people of the Province and asking them for their best advice to integrate it into our plan. We are not giving a poor mouth statement, as the member opposite said. We are giving the truth. We are giving the best information we have, and we stand by it.

The other point that I would really like to talk about is the health critic's three-pronged approach to the deficit. I would like to call it a three-legged stool. The first leg of the stool was about borrowing money to cut the deficit. Now, isn't that a great plan, borrowing money to cut the deficit. We will be borrowing money to deal with the deficit, not to cut the deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Increase the debt to cut the deficit.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right, increase the debt by borrowing to deal with the deficit. Voodoo economics. I do not know that one, I can tell you right now. That is the first leg of the stool. Already the stool is getting a bit shaky, I can tell you.

Now, let's look at the next one. He is talking about cutting costs. He talked about hospitals being half full. Who in this House has a hospital in their district that is half full? I am pleased that he said half full; he did not say half empty. That is a positive sign, hospitals half full. So, in his three-legged approach, one leg of which is already missing and the other one starting to shake, he wants to - admitting that almost half of our money goes to health and education - if half of our hospitals are empty and if half of our budget is on health and education, I would like to ask the member which hospital would he close, how many beds would he shut down, how many schools would he close down? The plan is starting to come out. That is the second leg, so already he needs to move that leg right to the middle of the stool if he is going to be able to sit on it at all.

The third leg is about tax cuts. Now, he makes the comparison first of all that we are rolling back the payroll tax. That is one of the things he is talking about. Rolling back the payroll tax, I am sorry, is not accurate. I have just explained it, and that is one portion of it.

The other part is that if you cut tax you grow it dollar for dollar, which means that by cutting taxes we are going to grow the economy. Meanwhile, he is saying that we are rolling back what we have already put out. We have not rolled back our taxes. We have put over $200 million back into the economy. What we do know is that when you are facing the kinds of challenges we have and we are position to make decisions and we have to be responsible for who we are, working on behalf of our constituents, we need to do the right thing.

We said from the beginning, to address this third leg of his stool, that we would cut the taxes when we were able to do that. We are deferring it because $25 million in our hand is a lot more important to the people of this Province as it relates to health and education than it is right now for the taxes. I challenge him to ask the people of the Province the same question. I know what they would tell him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Let me say, for the third leg of the stool, it is a stool without any legs. They are all gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The three-pronged approach, which I will call the three-legged stool, is a stool without any legs at all, and that is the plan. That is the first plan that we have heard of in the Province from this newly-led party.

I look forward to more. I look forward to hearing what the health plan is, more specifically, because obviously there has to be something other than no solutions and no plans. I think it is very important.

This is a very serious issue because our economy is one that is very important to all of us, and the people of the Province know that while we have a strong provincial economy right now, while it has grown and our GDP is high, and we are pleased that it will continue to grow provided that the production of oil is on stream, and we have made that commentary, we are also quite concerned that we are dependent upon the federal government through programs like CHST, which provides part of the funding we need for health and education and also for equalization. We know already, that money is going to be less than what we budgeted for, so we are living in the real world. When we put out the information to the people of the Province we lay out the truth, that we are concerned about the economy of this country because we are major partners with the U.S. and that we have to depend on them as well.

I would like to say that this Province remains positive about our current situation. We remain optimistic but we are cautious in what we are seeing happening. We are very pleased, and it is important to hear this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: As the Member for Baie Verte says, it is hard to listen to it because it is the truth and it is not totally devastating, and I know it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am sorry; that is the truth and these are the facts. That is all we can say at this point in time.

An interesting note: At a recent sale they had here in St. John's, a pre-Christmas sale, one of the stores - anecdotally, I have heard - recorded the strongest sales for that particular store anywhere in North America.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is a sign of consumer confidence. That is a sign that people have confidence in their wage increases that they have been given, confidence in a diversified economy, in new housing starts and in good, strong social policy, a government with a plan, a government that is telling them the truth, and a government that is open and honest. That is what that says.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we continue to have confidence in our own economy. We continue to say to the people of the Province: We, on this side of the House, believe in our Province, believe in the economy, and know that the sky is not falling. It is not falling.

I respectfully submit second reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Economic Advisory Council Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 31)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 24.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act." (Bill 39)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is in regard to the amendment of the Judgement Enforcement Act. It is very appropriate that we introduce this bill in this 100^th anniversary year since Marconi received the first wireless signal across the Atlantic at Signal Hill here in St. John's.

Undoubtedly, the most important new initiative in the field of personal property security law in the Province this year is the development of the remote access project of the Sheriff's Office. It is also a project that others in other provinces and territories of Canada are keenly watching. The aim and purpose of this project is threefold.

First, it is to permit selected users, businesses and law firms in this Province, to search the Judgement Enforcement Registry established under this act remotely from their own computer site.

Secondly, it is to allow users the ability to remotely access the Judgement Enforcement Registry here at the Sheriff's Office in St. John's, where the Judgement Enforcement Registry is physically situated via computer for the purpose of registering their judgements electronically.

Third, it is to allow approved users to pay for these services on line.

Honourable members will know, Mr. Speaker, that the Judgement Enforcement Registry is the computerized registry established under the authority of this act where all civil judgements in this Province are registered for enforcement purposes. Members will also know that this is the first such e-mail initiative for the Department of Justice, and only the second such initiative of this government.

Members familiar with the Judgement Enforcement Act will also know that it is the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and his staff, working under the auspices of this act, who are responsible for enforcing judgements as well as protecting the rights of debtors from overzealous creditors.

One of the twin purposes of the bill that I introduce here today is to facilitate the full implementation of the remote access project in this fiscal year. The other purpose is to take care of a number of housekeeping measures related to tidying up the act. These have come about as a result of a review by the act which was done by the present High Sheriff of Newfoundland, David Jones, Q.C., in consultation with departmental officials.

The purpose of the proposed amendments to the act is set out in the Explanatory Notes attached to the front of the bill. The changes proposed in clause 1 will make it possible for approved users meeting the criteria established by the Sheriff to register their judgements electronically via the Internet. It will also make it an offence to register a judgement electronically or otherwise where no judgement is enforced, or to include false information in a judgement. I should add at this point that no one is threatened by these amendments, as the more traditional way of registering judgements and giving proper instructions with respect to it by paper means will continue to be preserved.

I should state that the remote access project that the bill supports will not be fully implemented until all appropriate measures to ensure the protection and privacy of the data that is being encrypted and sent to the Sheriff's Office has been put in place.

Clause 2 of the bill, one of housekeeping measures I referred to, will give the sheriff the authority to discharge a notice of judgement registered on the registry where there is no basis for maintaining it, such as where a false registration has taken place or a debt has been paid off. At the same time, however, because no one should have absolute power, the act still gives that creditor or other persons who disagree with the sheriff's decision a right of review to the courts.

Clause 3 of this bill, another housekeeping measure, is meant to correct an anomaly found to exist in the present Judgement Enforcement Act. It requires the sheriff to give notice to a debtor of seizure of a market security such as a share in a company in which a debtor may have interest. At present there is no such notice required to be given to the bond owner, but now this amendment will require such.

I commend the bill to all members of the House. It will once again put this Province on the cutting edge of information technology in the field of civil law enforcement, just as Marconi did 100 years ago when he put us on the map with the first wireless signal. I will quote: Just as our forebearers rode the waves in search of a livelihood, so too we will ride the waves of technology in helping to build and create the new economy of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand just to make a few comments with respect to Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Judgment Enforcement Act. As the minister indicated, the Explanatory Notes make it quite clear, I guess, and easy for all of us to understand exactly what the purpose of this legislation is all about.

Again, as the minister indicated, clause 1 of the bill amends the Judgement Enforcement Act to facilitate the registration of judgments on the judgment registry by electronic means.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that on today's date, tabled in this Chamber for April 01, 2000 to March 31, 2001, was the Annual Report of the Office of the High Sheriff of Newfoundland, and contained in that report were the general office operations of the Office of the High Sheriff, and also reference to the remote electronic access project. It is indeed interesting, and perhaps just mere coincidence, that the report was tabled today, the same day that we have second reading of Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Judgment Enforcement Act.

I would like to refer just briefly to what the Annual Report of the Office of the High Sheriff of Newfoundland states with respect to the remote electronic access project, which is essentially what this amendment and what this piece of legislation is all about. It states, "The purpose of this project was and is to enable registered users (individuals, businesses and law firms) on-line access to the Judgement Enforcement Registry established under the auspices of the Judgement Enforcement Act, via an Internet based web application, to perform searches of the Judgement Enforcement Registry remotely from their own computer sites."

The report continues to state, Mr. Speaker: "It will also enable users to remotely access the Judgment Enforcement Registry of the Sheriff's Office, via computer for the purpose of registering their judgments electronically." It goes on to state: "It will also allow them to pay their accounts for such services on line."

"In addition, the Sheriff's Office will have a web site that will allow visitors and clients to view and use various forms, to view information regarding frequently asked questions including how to register and enforce a judgment, and to access a bulletin board and links to other relevant sites (i.e. Annual Reports and Legislation). These new electronic measures will greatly improve and enhance service to the public and our clients.", generally.

This is interesting, Mr. Speaker, "At the same time, the more traditional way of registering a judgment and performing a search will be preserved." Therefore, "This will permit service to continue to be afforded to users who do not have, or who do not wish to avail of this computer related technology." So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have, by virtue of this amendment, Bill 39, we have essentially, allowing what The Remote Electronic Access Project was all about, which was a project undertaken by the Department of Justice in conjunction with the Office of the High Sheriff.

With respect to general office operations, Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to talk to great extent about the Judgement Enforcement Act. Of course, what we are doing today, we are amending the Judgement Enforcement Act that was enacted in this Legislature in the fall of 1996, Mr. Speaker. It was a substantive piece of legislation at that time and, of course, because of its length, and at times because of its complexity, it is necessary to amend it during various sittings of the Legislature. It is interesting to note what this particular piece of legislation states about the Judgement Enforcement Act. It says that in regard to the Sheriff's Office, the Judgement Enforcement and the Financial Sections of the Sheriff's Office are responsible for maintaining the Province's Judgement Enforcement Registry; registering Orders of the Courts and other quasi- judicial bodies; and recording and actioning the instructions of creditors; protecting in accordance with the Judgement Enforcement Act and the regulations pursuant to that Act, the rights of debtors; maintaining an inventory of all assets seized or attached by the Sheriff's Office; overseeing the sale, overseeing as well the disposal or release of assets in accordance with the requirements of law; maintaining trust and general accounts and accounting for all money seized or received on accounts and dispersing them in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the law. Those procedures, those very detailed procedures, Mr. Speaker, are found throughout very complex, at times, procedures that are subject to the Statute and the regulations pursuant to an act respecting judgement enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the amendments that are found in Bill 39 and certainly they are important but, to some extent, they are housekeeping in the sense that these amendments now reflect the changes that have occurred in the past four to five years. They reflect changes that act in compliance with, and accordance with, the project that was conducted by the Department of Justice and the Office of the High Sheriff. The amendments in general, members on this side of the House, we certainly have no difficulty, in due course, allowing passage of this particular bill in an expeditious fashion.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity in having had a few minutes to speak during second reading. We do not anticipate further dispute with any of the proposed pieces of this legislation. We look forward to a relatively quick and expeditious passage of Bill 39 at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that it is almost adjournment time. At this time, I guess, with the accordance of the Government House Leader, I move to adjourn debate.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourned.

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