March 25, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 5


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Today we would like to welcome to the House of Assembly, twenty Grade 8 and Grade 9 students from Lakecrest - St. John's Independent School, with their Principal, Mr. Ron Pellerin, their teacher Ms Lois Hoegg, and their chaperone Ms Carolyn Cutt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, I would like to rule on a point of order raised yesterday by the Government House Leader.

The proceedings of this House are based on the long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all members. Thus the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language is strictly forbidden. Any member who feels aggrieved by a remark may bring the matter to the attention of the Speaker. In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the actual words spoken, including the tone, the manner and intention of the member speaking, the person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation, if any, and finally, if the words spoken caused disorder in the House.

Yesterday, in the House, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of order about a comment made by the Member for Grand Bank. Having reviewed Hansard, the Chair can confirm that in reference to a decision by the Premier to answer questions directed to the Ministry, the Member for Grand Bank shouted across the House, "What a way to treat a woman!"

The Speaker has reviewed the remarks in the House by members who spoke to the point of order and has held discussions with both the Member for Grand Bank and the Minister of Government Services. There can be no doubt that the minister was disappointed in the comment and regrets that a decision by the Premier to exercise his parliamentary right to answer any question directed to the government in Question Period was taken by an hon. member to be an affront to her gender. On the other hand, my discussions with the Member for Grand Bank lead me to conclude that there was no intention to speak disparagingly of the minister.

In this instance, we have a classic case in which the words spoken may have cause unintended distress and in the communication there is a substantive variance between the intended communication and the message received.

The Speaker asks all hon. members to be always cognizant of the parliamentary right of the Premier and the government to decide who answers questions or even if an answer is offered at all and, while members have the right to comment on the prerogative of the government to designate which member of the executive responds to which question, all members should exercise caution in attributing motives to those decisions.

This incident underscores the importance of balancing the right of members to express themselves against the need to ensure that, even in the heat of debate, we demonstrate respect for each other and avoid causing disorder in the House.

The Speaker rules that there is no point of order but he asks that members consider carefully his comments and his cautions.

Thank you.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements being made by the Member for Gander, the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for St. John's North, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before the House to bring attention to a matter which I feel should be of particular pride not only to the District of Gander, but to every citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Early next month, April 6 to be precise, an awards ceremony will be held at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., to honour the six members of a Cormorant helicopter crew from 103 Search and Rescue Squadron in Gander.

At considerable risk to their own lives, these brave men rescued sixteen sailors from a badly listing deck of a stricken freighter Camilla, which ran into trouble on January 23 of last year during a vicious winter storm almost 500 kilometres out in the North Atlantic. Conditions at the time were absolutely horrendous, with winds seventy-five to ninety kilometres an hour and swells peaking at twenty metres, testing the Cormorant to the very limits of, and possibly beyond, its operational capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, few, if any of us, in this House will ever experience the sort of life and death situations which the members of 103 Search and Rescue deal with almost on a daily basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. O'BRIEN: With leave to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: On that day in January of 2003, these six men, demonstrating tremendous courage and a high degree of professionalism, saved sixteen souls from a miserable death at sea.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask the members of the House to join me in extending congratulations and thanks on behalf of the entire Province to Master Corporal Rob Vidito, Captain Andrew Mercer, Major Gilbert Thibault, Sergeant Emilio de Chantal, Sergeant Dave Cooper and Master Corporal Scott Elliston.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, each year the Labrador Inuit Youth Division of the Labrador Inuit Association holds their Annual Youth Conference on the Coast of Labrador. This year it was held in the community of Hopedale from March 11-17. There were close to seventy delegates from the North Coast and the upper Lake Melville attending.

Mr. Speaker, it is a time when the youth get together to talk of their hopes, their dreams and their goals. This year there were two very important issues discussed. One was the ratification vote, which we all know on May 26 the Inuit of Labrador will vote to ratify the agreement that they signed with both the Province and the federal government.

They also talked of self-government. Mr. Speaker, should the ratification vote go through self-government will take place on the North Coast of Labrador in a few years, and the jobs that will be available to our young people will be many.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the youth on the North Coast of Labrador and the upper Lake Melville area, the organizers, and I am sure -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. ANDERSEN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the bell rings they will answer the call to build a bright future and be leaders on the North Coast of Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Elizabeth - Libby - Cunningham on being named this year's recipient of the Grace Sparkes Woman of Distinction Award. This award is presented annually to honour a woman who has demonstrated strength of character and who has made an outstanding contribution to the community as well as to political life in the Province.

In 1959, when there were relatively few female entrepreneurs, Libby established her own business and has since served at both provincial and Atlantic levels on her professional association. She has been a tireless volunteer, giving her time at St. Luke's Home and is now serving her third term as President of the Masonic Ladies' Auxiliary, where she has been a member since 1978.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in extending hearty congratulations to Libby Cunningham, this year's winner of the Grace Sparkes Woman of Distinction Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a local entrepreneur, Mr. Ches Penney, Chief Executive Officer of Ocean Choice International, who yesterday purchased six fish processing plants formerly owned by the Prince Edward Island Processor, Polar Seafoods.

Mr. Penney, a native of Carbonear, like myself, his sister, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, has done extremely well in the business sector of our Province.

As founder and owner of the Penney Group of Companies, Mr. Penney is involved in construction, auto sales, real estate, marine transport, energy, energy services and fish processing facilities. He was named as Atlantic Canada's top entrepreneur at the Ernst & Young 2002 Entrepreneur of the Year awards.

Ocean Choice International, the company which just purchased Polar Seafoods of Prince Edward Island, was formed in 2000. It manages several plants which process: snow crab, northern shrimp, cod, red fish, turbot, and mussels. The lobster operations which he purchased yesterday will fit nicely with his other processing facilities.

Again, I would like to congratulate Mr. Penney and wish him every success in this endeavour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to an extra ordinary lady, Mrs. Bridget Foley of Point Verde, Placentia, who was laid to rest yesterday. Bridget was employed as a licensed practical nurse at the Placentia Health Care Centre. She began her career almost forty years ago at the old Placentia Cottage Hospital. The hundreds of people who filled the Sacred Heart Church in Placentia yesterday, complete with an honour guard of her co-workers capped off with an eloquent sermon by Rev. Father Jim Beresford, was a true testament to the effect that Bridget had on so many people during her many years as a health care provider in our area.

Mr. Speaker, Bridget Foley touched the lives of so many people in a way many of us could only dream of.

From her husband Dennis, to her daughter Denise, she extended a helping hand and a caring soul to all who needed one. My own mother who had nine children, most of us who were born at the old Placentia Cottage Hospital, will refer to Bridget as her guardian angel. Indeed, she was for so many others as well.

In describing Bridget's lifes vocation as a health care provider yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Father James Beresford put it best when he said, "When work is done truly and out of love it does not matter how long or difficult the hours are! It matters not if there is any gain or advantage to the worker. It is done effectively, efficiently and effortlessly it ceases to be a chore. Work done freely and lovingly becomes a pleasure and it brings its own rewards."

For Bridget Foley, work was never a chore or duty, it was a pleasant labour of love!

Mr. Speaker, as an ambulance driver for several years, I enjoyed many a late night a cup of tea and a Purity Cream Cracker with Bridget at the old Cottage Hospital in Placentia. What I enjoyed most were her stories about her hometown of Cuslett, on the Cape Shore. I have, as I am sure many others in the Placentia & St. Mary's District, have shared many a laugh with Bridget.

When my own sister passed away in June of 2000 Bridget asked me, "Why did somebody so good have to die so young?" I am sure many people are asking that very same question about Bridget today.

Mr. Speaker, finding meaning in life is important to us all. Bridget Foley's passing has caused many people to reflect on the real treasures that are truly important in our lives and that is our families, our friends and our faith.

Bridget Foley was a loving wife, a mother, a professional health care provider, who gave her life to the service of others. She invested love, respect and meaning into her work each and every day. Many people, who are too numerous to mention, are better off today because of Bridget Foley's presence in their lives.

I would ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in expressing our gratitude to the years of service Bridget provided to our Province, and our deepest sympathy to Bridget's husband, Dennis, their daughter Denise, their families and friends during this time of sorrow.

To conclude, I would once again like to quote Father Beresford as he concluded his sermon yesterday. "May she rest eternally in the caring hands of Christ, to be enshrined with her maker - who created Bridget and then threw away the mould."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today the School Lunch Association is sponsoring their 7th Annual SKIP A LUNCH Campaign. It is held annually to raise awareness of the issue of child poverty and its affects on children's education, and to raise funds in support of it's school meal program offered in fifteen schools in the St. John's area. People are asked to skip their lunch today and donate the amount they would spend to the School Lunch Association.

I invite all hon. members to participate by sending a donation to the School Lunch Association, or to support a school meal program in their district. Many children in this Province skip lunch, not out of choice, but out of hardship. In March, 37 per cent of families could not afford the modest price asked by the School Lunch Association from those who can afford to pay.

Mr. Speaker, the need for a universal school meal program across the Province is obvious when we look at the efforts of groups, such as the School Lunch Association, who are having great difficulty supporting their program with donations and a partial grant from government. This is in St. John's, where it is much easier to get donations and corporate sponsorship. It should be obvious to all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: It should be obvious to all that for a school meal program to be available to every student in the Province, not just the 15 per cent who now receive it, government must take it on.

Congratulations to the School Lunch Association on the great work they have been doing since 1989.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform members of this House of new consumer protection information now available through my department.

In January, I attended the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers for consumer affairs. An area of particular concern at that meeting was identity theft.

We all agreed on the importance of giving consumers the most reliable and complete information on how to protect themselves from becoming a victim.

A consumer information kit has been developed for use in all provinces. I am pleased to announced today that the information is now available on the Government Services web site.

This kit builds on identity theft information already available on the web site. A tip sheet was posted in December on how people can protect themselves from this crime.

Mr. Speaker, stolen identities have been used to obtain loans and credit cards. People can reduce the risk of identity theft by guarding personal and financial information closely.

I encourage people to log on to our web site to learn how to protect themselves against this crime, and how to know if they have become a victim. The web address is www.gov.nl.ca/gs

Mr. Speaker, this department is making sure the people of the Province are aware of the dangers of scams and other consumer issues. I am working with other national consumer affairs ministers on areas of mutual concern. The ministers will meet again in Quebec City in the fall.

A massive amount of work has been done to protect Canadians. I believe the provinces working together is the right approach.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Very timely, Mr. Speaker, considering the Premier's attempts at taking over the identities of some of his own ministers; very timely indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that identity theft is indeed a serious and everyday problem. I support the minister in her efforts of keeping the public updated and safe and informed as well. I ask her, though, to look at other areas, and those are the credit card rates and the financial rates of other financial transactions that the public are exposed to in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is certainly no end to the ways in which people who are out to do illegal things can get access to people's identity and use it against them. It is certainly timely, in the computer age, to do that, but there may be other people who need to be aware of this outside of those who have computers, so perhaps the Web site is not enough, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the minister would consider other forms of informing the public about these matters. Perhaps today is the day that you are doing that as well, but there should be other ways of getting access to people who need this information to know more about how they can be taken by people who are out to do criminal acts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise this afternoon to inform this hon. House about a police officers training program announced in the Speech from the Throne. This training initiative provides a long-term strategy for the training and development of police officers in the Province.

Through a partnership with Memorial University - Memorial University at St. John's and Memorial University at Corner Brook - we will recruit, train and introduce a total of seventy-five new police officers in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary over a three-year period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this recruitment level includes fifteen new RNC positions in each of the three years, and the balance of ten officers per year through attrition. The RNC will begin to introduce these new officers to the force in 2005.

This program is in the final stages of development and will begin in the upcoming fall or winter semester at Memorial University. This program will include two semesters of academic training, supplemented by a practical work term with the RNC. Recruits will pay regular tuition fees at Memorial University.

The addition of forty-five police officers to the RNC will greatly increase the ability of the force to deal with the law enforcement issues it encounters on a daily basis. The new training program at Memorial University should also significantly increase the pool of qualified candidates available to the police force, thus ensuring its ability to deal with the increased number of retirements that are anticipated in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to the safety and security of communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am proud that this government will enhance public safety by making sound investments in policing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed nice to see, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. It is certainly nice to see it, and although the colour on the book may change in the Throne Speech, the commitments within are commitments that were made by the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do believe, if you check last year's Budget, the then Minister of Finance announced the funding for the first fifteen new officers, and this member, who was then the minister, in fact, held the meetings with Chief Deering and Deputy Chief Brown to commence the process of having the training done here in our own Memorial University, where it ought to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: So, I am very pleased to see that the minister is indeed carrying through on this great initiative which adds to public safety in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is expired.

MR. PARSONS: I look forward to the day when I can see this minister rise in his place, Mr. Speaker, and say that he is going to give RNC officers equal pay for equal work with the RCMP. Now, that is a commitment we would like to see him deliver on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to argue over who gets credit for this; I am just glad it is going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I have gotten lots of calls from my district since this has been talked about last week, because there is a lot of interest in people in the Province joining the RNC and I am glad to see that we are taking this opportunity to train our own people to police our own people, but I will say to the minister that this also presents a golden opportunity to correct the gender imbalance that currently exists in the force today.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that there are other needs that the RNC have, such as their fleet of vehicles that we have all heard talked about in the news lately. That needs to be addressed as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: As representing a district that is policed by the RNC, I can certainly attest to the fact that their degree of skill, their policing methods, are second to none in this country, and that they do a great job. It will be a pleasure to see many more young people from our Province, trained in our own Province, to police our own people.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry; I did not recognize that the minister was standing.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Loyola Hearn, the Member of Parliament for St. John's West -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - on the successful passing of his private members' motion on custodial management in the House of Commons last evening. Motion 136 calls on the Government of Canada to immediately extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

Mr. Hearn is to be commended for his efforts. He has worked tirelessly on the issue of foreign overfishing, including his dedicated work with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The Committee's members also deserve acknowledgment, including Mr. Tom Wappel, the MP for Scarborough Southwest, who chaired the March 2003 report that recommended custodial management. It is encouraging to see such broad support in the House of Commons for action on foreign overfishing.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador maintains that the situation in the Northwest Atlantic is unacceptable. Reported fishery infractions outside of the 200-mile limit have increased in recent years. Under current Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization - or NAFO - rules, contracting parties are the ones who enforce regulations and prosecute violations - or, should I say, do not. This has repeatedly proven to be ineffective, because certain countries blatantly disregard conservation measures and regulations. These countries refuse to take action against vessels that fish in contravention of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, our Province believes that Canada must investigate alternatives to the current NAFO management regime. We maintain that custodial management is a viable option to conserve our precious fishery resources. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has other tools available to improve the management and conservation of straddling stocks. One of these tools is the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, or UNFA, which was recently ratified by the European Union, which the federal government must be prepared to use.

Mr. Speaker, should a multilateral approach fail to meet provincial expectations, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to press Canada to pursue alternatives such as custodial management. Therefore, it is welcome news that Motion No. 136 passed in the House of Commons, and Mr. Hearn and his colleagues are to be congratulated. The Premier has raised custodial management with the Prime Minister, we have both brought this issue forward in meetings with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Regan, and we will continue to pursue this matter on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

On behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I, too, would like to thank MP, Loyola Hearn, for his initiative. In fact, I called his office this morning to convey that thought. It was because of his hard work and tenacity that he managed to get that motion passed last night.

Custodial management, as we all know in this House, has been an issue that has been on the table here and there have been many resolutions, all-party resolutions, that have been sent forward to Ottawa about the need for custodial management on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks.

What frightens me here today, in reading the statement that the minister just issued, is that I think he has gone soft on the issue and he is wavering, because he talks about other tools available to improve the management of our fisheries that Canada should explore before instituting custodial management. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister opposite that we have watching those other tools that the federal government has been using since 1997, and that is the reason that there is no fishery on the East Coast of our Province today.

I say the time for talk is over, Mr. Speaker. Everyone in this House supports custodial management and that is the reason that Mr. Hearn put forth the Private Member's Resolution and was successful in getting it passed last night. The time for talk is over. We should stand today, support Mr. Hearn, and have that motion passed into an act in the House of Commons -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: - before the House closes and it is lost after another election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to congratulate MP, Loyola Hearn, for his work on the issue of custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, but we would be remiss if we didn't also recognize the work of Peter Stoffer, the Nova Scotia Member of Parliament for Sackville-Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore, who has also been ceaseless in his work on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in support of this Province, in support of this issue, and was instrumental in getting a unanimous report from that committee to the House of Assembly on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this motion which was passed in the House yesterday had the full support of the entire NDP caucus in the House of Commons. We have been there all the way on this issue, both in this House and in the House of Commons, and that deserves to be recognized so that the people of this Province know.

I, too, Mr. Speaker, am a little concerned to hear that this minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Just for a few seconds, Mr. Speaker.

I am a little concerned that this minister really only regards it as one of the options. Perhaps it is not surprising that the Government of Canada did not support this motion yesterday in the House of Commons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin Question Period today, I want to remind members of some comments I made earlier, on the first day of Question Period, reminding members that the questions should be brief, that time is scarce and we should recognize that; also, that preambles to questions should be brief, and supplementary questions require no preambles. Supplementary questions should, as far as possible, flow from the answers of ministers. Likewise, answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.

I also note that yesterday, I do believe, there was some variance from our general trend and the Speaker recognizes that. Today, I ask members to be more cognizant of the need for brevity so we can get in as many questions and as many answers as possible.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the recognition of the good work I have been doing all week in setting a good example.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Premier claimed that his insurance plan would lead to significant reductions in automobile insurance rates. Today, it has been reported in the media that even the Public Utilities Board does not think the Premier's plan will reduce the rates but will ensure they increase instead.

Now that it has been shown that the personal insurance plan of the Premier has been so badly bungled by his one-man approach, would the Premier not agree that it is time to go back to the drafting table, time to put back the cap that he promised the people that would give savings, and to give up on this ill-conceived notion of a deductible that is going to drive the claims up instead of down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is endorsing an article that says, "Local companies losing money", which means he is in favour of more profits for insurance companies, because that is exactly what he is saying - an industry that made $2.6 billion in profits last year.

From the government's position, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. We have acted within the first six months of our mandate to provide a solution to the problem with insurance rates. Honourable members opposite, when they formed the government, had eight years to do the same thing and did not act. We have, in fact, implemented a 15 per cent average saving for consumers in insurance rates. We are also going to be looking at commercial insurance, personal insurance, home insurance. We are looking at marine insurance. We will have a comprehensive hearing to deal with all types of insurance. We have acted swiftly, we have acted promptly, and we have achieved average savings of 15 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier is not going to admit that his one-man show approach and his one-man solution to insurance rates is not working. Instead of the savings, savings, savings that he talked about yesterday here in this House of Assembly, in fact, the consumers will actually lose, lose, lose. That is what is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, the headlines today are screaming about the only group that will not lose in Newfoundland and Labrador. The lawyers will not lose. Everybody else stands to lose, especially the consumers. Where did the Premier come up with this ill-conceived, lamebrain notion of a deductible? Could he tell me if it was maybe at a personal injury lawyers convention? Because nobody else has heard of it, that he has supposedly had careful deliberation with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the hon. member opposite engages in personal attacks, as he has done before. I take great pride in my profession as a lawyer, when I acted as a lawyer and represented people like Greg Parsons, Mount Cashel victims, and lots of other clients that I represented, I thought, quite capably.

The fact that he talks about trial lawyers and everything else, I am sure the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile takes offence to that. I am sure the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi takes offence to that, because I am sure they have acted for personal injury claimants as well. It is very unfortunate that you stoop to those lows, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is also very much aware that I have withdrawn from my firm. I am no longer a partner in my firm. He can drive by the building; my name is no longer on my firm name. You are stooping to another all-time low.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the Premier does not want to answer the question. I understand that is his prerogative. I asked where the idea came from. No answer yesterday, no answer again today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. It is crystal clear, from what we have seen, that the insurance companies will continue to make billions in profit. Lawyers will continue to get richer and richer and richer, and the consumer will most certainly continue to lose and pay the price with this particular one-man show solution to insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The question is this: When can, and who can, the volunteers and the consumers expect someone on that side to stand up and actually fight for them, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman opposite does not really understand. You cannot have a situation where insurance companies are making profits and lawyers are making profits, and everyone is making profits. The idea of his solution is to get a contribution -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) at all. You do not understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time is very precious and I caution the hon. members that time spent in exchanges across the House takes away from the right of the Premier to get to his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman opposite knows, these recommendations were made by the Public Utilities Board. They are based on actuarial information, solid actuarial information which was provided to us by the Public Utilities Board; based on a benchmark study, based on actual actuarial results. There is, as well, going to be a 4 per cent reduction of third-party claims. There will be savings based on collateral benefits. There will be savings -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Premier now to finish his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There will be savings based on collision and comprehensive. There are direct average savings, some as high as 18 per cent in areas off the Avalon to consumers on their bills. We have achieved a saving. Obviously, the hon. member opposite is not pleased that we have done it in six months when in eight years he did nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not admit that it is quite easy for lawyers to make a profit. It is quite easy for the insurance companies to make a profit if the consumers are forced to pay enough, as a matter of fact too much, which is still what is going to happen after these reforms are brought into law by the one-man show and his government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say it so many times. It is quite obvious if you look at the recommendations, if you look at the documentation that was provided by the Public Utilities Board. If you read and understand the actuarial results, you will actually see that the recommendation that was made by the Public Utilities Board will result in average savings of at least 15 per cent. It is there in black and white and it is based on (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We can say no more. Your allegations with regard to lawyers and insurance companies are disparaging and very unfortunate under the circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct my questions to the Minister of Government Services. The government promised to table insurance legislation during this session. I would like to ask the minister to stand today and give her first answer in this House. My question for the minister: When will we see this legislation, and will it be here before the Easter break?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. member opposite that it will be made available to this House at the very first opportunity. We hope to have it before the Easter break and, if not, it will be immediately after it. As soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I would like to recognize the fact that the minister did try to get up and speak.. I say to the minister that the Web site for identity theft is www.gov.nl.ca/gs.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to get to his question.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it was brought to the attention of the House yesterday that many people will not see savings because they have already renewed at higher rates. Since her plan will fail these people, will the minister go back and make any special provisions to ensure real savings that are being experienced by consumers? Who will fight for them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the hon. member opposite that his information is actually incorrect. There will, in fact, be a rebate for consumers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, a final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I thank the Premier for that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we hear about how great this plan is. The Public Utilities Board, which was supposed to write this plan, has condemned the government in today's paper. Can the minister tell me why she wasted a $250,000 on a report that was obviously ignored?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the report was followed, acknowledged. The report was accepted. I would ask the hon. gentleman opposite, or in fact any member opposite, if they want to contact the Public Utilities Board. I spoke with the Public Utilities Board this morning. Their position is very clear, is very firm. I would welcome them - they stand by their opinion and I cannot be responsible for the opinion of one person. They stand by their opinion and so do we.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

The Premier has mismanaged the public sector negotiations and poisoned the labour relations climate. He described serious concerns raised by respective labour leaders as nonsense and insulting them by suggesting they have nothing better to do when they are standing up for the workers' rights of this Province. Does the minister feel that her leader's comments are building a positive relations climate, or would she like for him to apologize and start over?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this government certainly supports the collective bargaining process. We respect the labour movement, and we will let the collective bargaining process proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as usual we not getting any answers to the questions that we are asking here in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I would like to ask the Minister Responsible for Labour if she would ask the Premier today to swallow his pride and apologize so the unions and the government can reach an agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has difficulty hearing the question. I am sure that the members do understand the need for us to maintain good decorum during Question Period.

Again, I would pass the floor back to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the question is for the Minister of Labour, who is the person in the House of Assembly who represents labour and the workers in this Province. I will ask her to ask the Premier to swallow his pride and apologize so the unions and government can reach an agreement and avoid a strike next week. I think it is very, very serious business in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this is Question Period. If the hon. member would like an answer from our leader, he can certainly ask the question to the leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. I am encouraged by the answer of the Minister Responsible for Labour, about collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, in June of 1988, his predecessor, the hon. Brian Peckford, entered into an agreement with the public sector unions on pay equity, recognizing that they had systemically discriminated against women in the public sector. This agreement was, in fact, overruled by legislation of former Premier Clyde Wells in 1991, knocking out the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 from the benefits of pay equity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier whether he is prepared to acknowledge, support and implement the collective agreement signed by Premier Peckford in 1988 on pay equity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I acknowledge a very good question from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. This matter is before the courts, but I can assure the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that I have had discussions with the Department of Justice and I am presently looking into that issue myself, because I consider it to be a very important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the pay equity benefits for those four years amount to about $24 million, which the women of the public sector should have received. The arbitrator hearing the case, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and the Court of Appeal, have all agreed that it amounted to discrimination against women.

Will the Premier tell us whether he is going to send his representative to the Supreme Court of Canada in May and defend the decision to overrule this agreement by legislation, or is he going to do the right thing and deal with the question of pay equity honourably with the public sector workers in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that this government, in all matters, will always do the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I can assure the hon member that I am looking into this issue, that our Cabinet is considering this issue, but it is a matter that is in the hands of the Department of Justice. It is a matter that is before the courts, and I have to do the appropriate and the right thing as well in that particular perspective. I am looking at it and your point is well taken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

In a little over a month from now, on May 7, school boards around the Province will have to tell teachers whether or not they have a job for next fall. Can the minister stand today and tell how many teaching positions will be cut in this year's Budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question obviously is a timely one, and he is correct. The hon. member is correct when he states that in due course boards will have to make decisions. Of course, as the hon. member knows, that is an issue that is budgetary in nature, and in due course, in a matter of days actually, the hon member, in addition to the public of the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, will have a definite answer to that particular question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the minister is allowed to answer a question, but it is the same response that we are getting from everyone: Wait for the Budget.

It has come to our attention that the minister's department has submitted figures to Treasury Board stating that 378 teaching positions could be cut based on the Sparkes-Williams formula. I am sure that the minister knows what that formula means. I ask the minister: Is it true that he is going to slash 378 teaching positions in next week's Budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. member opposite is fully aware of where we are in the budgetary process. In fact, the hon. member who just asked the question is my predecessor in the Department of Education and knows full well the nature and the circumstances and the process and the procedure with respect to the budgetary process.

I can assure the hon. member that within days there will be a precise figure known and the minister will know fully and totally the exact implications of the decisions as a result of the budgetary process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of what the minister and his colleagues said last year about the negative impacts teacher cuts would have on the quality of education in our Province, why doesn't the minister stand today and tell the teachers of this Province that he will not cut positions in this Budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Again I say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that the question is timely from the point of view that in a matter of days, and in a matter of weeks, final decisions will have be made with respect to teacher allocations, so that the eleven school districts, the eleven school boards, in our Province can make the appropriate allocations.

I have to repeat myself in this particular case, it is clearly a budgetary issue and within a matter of days the public of this Province will know totally, in every respect, what the numbers are and what the allocations will be to allow boards to complete the work that has to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Minister responsible for Labrador Affairs.

Minister, I am glad to hear that your government is announcing a lot of the Liberal commitments today in the House. A little over a year ago this government committed $2.4 million to the people, especially children, in Labrador. You and your government have not lived up to that promise and you haven't announced it. You have put their lives on hold.

Minister, will you stand in this House today and confirm to the people in Labrador that your government will honour that $2.4 million to the children in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the Member for Torngat Mountains may be talking about the $2.4 million that the previous administration committed to the Mealy Mountains auditorium. If that is the case, I will proceed to answer the question. As the member knows, as with all other capital expenditures, since we became government, over the past five months, all expenditures have been under review and the same answer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - will be provided just as was the case with the Grand Bank hospital, Mr. Speaker. The decision on that will come in due course and as part of the budgetary process again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the minister is allowed to stand and answer a question.

Mr. Speaker, the school year has less than three months left, and there are all kinds of things that the people of Labrador, the schools, are planning for the coming year. If we have to wait for the Budget for some programs, it is going to be to late.

Your government may have put this on hold, Minister, but a commitment was made to the people in Labrador, to the children, and I am asking you again on their behalf: Will you and your government today announce that you will honour the $2.4 million to build an auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to serve all the children of Labrador? Minister, will you stand and confirm that commitment today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only repeat that this government is well aware of the concerns of the people of Labrador. We are well aware of the desire of the people of Labrador, in all parts of Labrador, to have an auditorium. We are working diligently at that, Mr. Speaker, looking at our options, looking at the commitments that were made by the previous Administration.

I will remind the Member for Torngat Mountains that this government certainly has moved forward on some issues in Labrador. We have, just as recently as last week or the week before, announced Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, these issues are significant expenditure items, and thanks to the mess that the previous Administration left for us to deal with, we will have to take our time and make sure that we make the appropriate decision within the fiscal realities of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Again, another commitment that was given to the people in Labrador regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Speaker, it was the government of the day, the Liberal government, that made that commitment. Now, you have announced that commitment. Minister, you and your government have announced that commitment, you have announced the RCMP, you have announced things for the Premier's riding. Will you today make that commitment to the children in Labrador, that you and your government will honour that $2.4 million to build the auditorium, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is quite right in pointing out that we did honour a commitment that was made on the Trans-Labrador Highway. We did deal with an issue on the routing of the Trans-Labrador Highway that was controversial, and we made a decision to move to the southerly route, that is significantly more costly for the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We did make that decision. He is right, that we did make the decision announced last week in the Throne Speech on the RCMP officers, who will be stationed in Labrador, so we are moving forward on these issues.

As for the issue of the Mealy Mountain auditorium and the $2.4 million, I can only say again that we are very cognizant of the concerns of the people there. We are very aware of the desire of the people of Labrador to have an auditorium and, Mr. Speaker, we will deal with that in due course.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Status of Women.

I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, whether or not she will bring forward the changes necessary to this House, to amend the Labour Standards Act, so that people who take advantage for compassionate care under the new EI rules will have their jobs protected the same as those who take leave for maternity or other things.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that compassionate care leave is something that we are looking at right now. It is something we are analyzing and we will be making a decision some time this year, if and when we will be bringing it to the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that we are one of only a couple of provinces left to bring forward this legislation and I want to ask the minister if we can look forward to that being brought forth in this sitting of the House, during the spring sitting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that we, too, as a government, see that as a very important issue and we acknowledge that we have not brought it to the floor yet, to the House. I cannot confirm today if it will be in this sitting but I will confirm that it is a priority.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs. Last year we all made recommendations to the federal Minister of Fisheries that we maintain a limited cod fishery not only in the Gulf, but along the Northeast Coast of this Province. Does he still support this recommendation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never thought that the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would get around to asking me something.

Mr. Speaker, as the former minister knows, we did, as part of an all-party committee, put forward a proposal to the Government of Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that was unanimously supported by all parties in this House on a limited cod fishery off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and off the West Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and Southern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in deliberations with industry representatives, certainly from Trinity Bay, Bonavista Bay over the past number of months since I became minister, it was impressed upon me that they would, at the very least, like to see a limited amount of cod available for by-catch allocations in that area so they could continue to prosecute -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will complete my answer right now and say that, certainly, I think he will admit that as an all-party committee last year we recognized the challenges in getting a full-scale commercial fishery on Northern cod and that the West Coast cod fishery was able to be sustained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister said here in this House twice this week that he has held discussions with the federal minister in recent weeks. I know that he recommended a limited fishery for the Gulf. Did he, indeed, recommend a limited fishery, as well, for 2J+3KL?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can confirm that when I met with Minister Regan on two separate occasions that we did have a discussion on the Northern Gulf cod fishery and the Northern cod fishery. I impressed upon him the need for the FRCC to have another look at these stocks. His decision was to request the FRCC to look at the Northern Gulf stock. I have said in my encounters with the minister and in my deliberations with fishermen and fisher women and their representatives from Trinity Bay and Bonavista Bay on the Northeast Coast, that consistent with their views we need to have a bycatch allocation on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador so they can prosecute the other fisheries in their area.

That is the position I put forward to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I think it is one that can be upheld.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 49(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the attached list of temporary loans raised under section 48 of the act, since the last report to the House.

Pursuant to section 55(3) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to report the following information with respect to guaranteed loans paid out by the Province since the last annual report to the House. There was one, A. L. Stuckless & Sons Ltd., the amount guaranteed was $1.2 million.

In addition, and pursuant to 55(1)(2), I wish to report that there has been no guaranteed debt of any Crown corporation or agency assumed by the Province since the last annual report to the House.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions for the Granting Of Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 3)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: "That This House Approve In General The Budgetary Policy of the Government." Referred to as the Budget Speech.

Petitions

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition that I have cleared with the Clerk's Table. I will read the prayer of the petition.

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

WHEREAS there is a definite need for improvements and expansions to the Bay d'Espoir Medical Clinic located in St. Alban's; and

WHEREAS work on this facility has been announced and tendered by the previous government but work has since been put on hold by the current government;

THEREFORE, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to see this very important work on this health care facility proceed without further delay.

Today, Mr. Speaker, this petition that I am presenting is from the communities of St. Joseph's Cove, St. Veronica's, Morrisville and the Town of Milltown, in Bay d'Espoir. Obviously, this particular petition speaks on behalf of all of the communities in Bay d'Espoir because it is a regional facility. Quite often you will find in different areas when people are looking for facilities, they find somehow to not be able to agree on what community or communities that these facilities should go in. Here in the Bay d'Espoir region a number of communities, all of them, unanimously agree that the extension to the clinic in St. Alban's should be done.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask government, in their deliberations, to show concern for the people here and hopefully next Tuesday we can see that this particular project that has been put on hold will finally be given the consent to go ahead and award tenders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 9,352 residents of the West Coast of Newfoundland. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is:

WHEREAS the government of this Province in its capacity as a funding agent for the Western Health Care Corporation has directed the Corporation to recover its deficit and cut its current expenditures; and

WHEREAS the Corporation has proposed to accomplish this by eliminating rural medical clinics, obstetrical and surgical services and substantially reducing laboratory services at Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville;

THEREFORE, let it be known that your petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador direct the Corporation to maintain obstetrical, surgical and laboratory services at the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, to maintain and provide current levels and additional funding necessary to maintain such services.

Mr. Speaker, the names on the petition represent communities from Burgeo to St. George's to Port au Port. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, names on the petition come from just about all over the West Coast of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the petition arises from a proposal of the Western Health Care Corporation which was submitted to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The proposal contains recommendations and alternatives that would close clinics throughout Western Newfoundland from Daniel's Harbour to Rose Blanche. The proposal, which is being circulated widely in Western Newfoundland, also suggests consolidation of obstetrical services and gynecology services from the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville and the Dr. Charles LeGrow hospital in Port aux Basques to the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook.

Those recommendations would downgrade the hospitals at Stephenville and Port aux Basques and make them into large clinics instead of hospitals. They would also remove clinics which are vital to the health of residents who live in proximity to those clinics. Those recommendations and alternatives would be disastrous to the health care in this part of the Province, and I pray that this House obey the petition.

It is my prayer, and the prayer of the citizens who signed this petition, and indeed the prayer of the citizens of rural Western Newfoundland, that the health care of our citizens be the best that it can be.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this Administration will provide good health care, and indeed will improve the health care of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition. It reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Parliament assembled.

WHEREAS the road to Southern Point and the road to McCarthy's Point in the community of Bellevue have been plowed by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation in the past and there is still a need to have these roads plowed during the winter;

THEREFORE, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to take actions to see that the road to Southern Point and the road to McCarthy's Point in the community of Bellevue continues to be plowed by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, in our communities in rural Newfoundland, we have a lot of small communities. This petition was signed by 168 residents of the community of Bellevue. I would say that is probably the total number of people in the community of Bellevue. These communities are not governed by local or community councils, but have local service districts, and it has been the tradition, or practice, of the Department of Works and Services to plow the roads in these communities. In those two particular communities, we have people living in them. They are very gainfully employed, in terms of working at the oil refinery. The only thing that they receive from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the highway's plow going down their road every time there is a snow storm. That is about the only kind of service that they receive from the provincial government.

We give the cities in Newfoundland and Labrador all kinds of operating grants, millions and millions and millions of dollars. We are talking about peanuts here, Mr. Speaker, in terms of these small communities and what is required to keep these small communities going. All we are talking about here is for the plow, instead of turning around at a turnaround, is to go right on down to the Cemetery Road in Bellevue. We are talking about 500 feet. I would say when there is a snowstorm we are probably talking about $2 worth of fuel, and here we are, residents living in these communities and cannot get their roads plowed. I think there is a message here from this government across the way that they are trying to resettle Newfoundland and Labrador because this year we saw communities in this Province, on the Northern Peninsula, where they went for twenty days without their roads being plowed.

I call on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to give people in rural Newfoundland some attention and get out and plow these particular roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

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

I move to Orders of the Day, Bill 2, a resolution respecting the Granting Of Interim Supply To Her Majesty, and that the House do now move into Committee to consider this resolution.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee will now hear debate on Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service; Interim Supply. The Chair will recognize the first speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity again today to continue in the Committee debate with respect to Interim Supply and make a few points, just for information for members of the House and for members of the general public.

The real circumstance, as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that we look forward to - early next week, on Tuesday of next week, as we understand it - when the Budget will be brought down. This Interim Supply is about - as I understand it, and been described by the Finance Minister - one-quarter of what would be expected in the total budget for next year. It allows for the government to continue on for the first three months of the year while the Budget debate, that we will then begin next week, will continue in earnest. We look forward to participating in that and we will want much more detail at that point and time. We expect to see much more detail, beginning on Tuesday of next week. It will be enlightening for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador to get an answer other than wait for the Budget. We are delighted to see the minister now prepared to bring down a Budget early next week.

Just for my friend, the Minister of Finance who is sitting there in his seat listening to every word I am saying - as he always is, and I appreciate that because I know he always pays attention to me. The one irony I would point out is that in the past -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I wish the Minister of Finance would stop trying to make me laugh, Mr. Chair, while he is over there making faces at me.

In any event, we have had some wonderful experiences with the Minister of Finance when he was the Finance critic. In fact, he would always - I was interested and amused when he introduced the bill last week and he said: Now, this is very routine; you should not need any detail; everybody understands this process; should pass in a couple of minutes; no need to debate this. It bears reminding that his standard line for the last three years was: How can we expect, Mr. Chairman, to pass this in just a few minutes and give the government the right to spend over $1 billion without a significant debate? That is in Hansard I think about twenty times from the now Finance Minister. Of course, his introduction was: This is routine; there is nothing to this; nothing to be alarmed about; it is only a little bit of money. It is only $1 billion or so for a few months, do not worry about it. We do not need any details. It does not need any explanation. So, we can carry on from there.

I am willing to acknowledge that it is an opportunity for all of us in the House to raise some issues about the finances of the Province because it is a major finance bill, probably the most major finance bill, Mr. Chairman, next to the Budget itself. I would make a few comments.

One of the ironies I see in it is this - notice the number I just mentioned. This bill is asking the House to give approval - the members that got elected, the forty-eight of us - for the government to spend just over $1 billion. Now, the number is not exactly $1 billion but there is coincidence in that because the Premier of our Province, the one-man show that we have seen here the last few days, who will let certain ministers speak but does not let other ministers speak - and that is his prerogative to do so, we understand that. The one-man show went on television on January 5 and said: We have a tough circumstance; we have had this report done. He used the number of $1 billion, too. That is the coincidence in it, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to speak to, for just a minute or so.

He talked about $1 billion as well. We are talking about $1 billion. He talked about the fact - and I think he has been straightened out since by the Finance Minister; as a matter of fact, I know he has - that the Finance Minister had a great deal of difficulty, because the Premier stated to the people of the Province that we have to give $1 billion every year to the banks, to pay the interest on our loans.

Now, of course, all of the caucus and Cabinet believed that because that was the first time they heard it. That was the first time they heard it - it was on television - just like everybody else, and they assumed that their Premier knew what he was talking about, and that we actually had to give $1 billion to the banks, for interest on the loans. They believed it so much, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Justice was out on the radio a couple of days later answering a question - I believe it was on a policing issue - and he said: Sure, we would love to do more in policing, but you have to understand that the first billion dollars that we spend every year, we have to give to the banks. We have to give the first billion dollars to the banks, because the Premier said so.

I heard the Minister of Natural Resources making a speech in Mount Pearl, I believe, to a Chamber of Commerce, and he said: You have to understand there is a limit to what we can do, because the first billion dollars that we spend, we have to give it to the banks.

Since then, the Minister of Finance has been in the public airways, on television, on open line, the radio, every bit of media, saying: Oh, that number, a billion, that number - and this is the point I want to make today, Mr. Chairman - that number of a billion that my colleagues, the two ministers and the Premier, said we have to give to the bank, that is not really a billion. That is $600 million. Actually, it is a little less than $600 million - nowhere close.

I know the Minister of Finance is listening intently now as I make this point. I wonder how he would feel today, when he brings forward a bill asking us to approve $1 billion that we are really going to spend - we are not going to make out we are going to spend this; we are really going to spend this billion dollars - how would he feel if he stood up today and said: Oh, I changed my mind. It is not really $1 billion; it is only $557 million. Would he still pass the bill today? Would he still want the bill passed today, if that big a change had occurred?

Well, that is the change that the people of the Province and his own caucus colleagues, as the Minister of Finance, have now come to understand, and he is wondering why the union leaders and others who are engaged in serious negotiations are down there questioning the Premier, because they found out from the first statement that he made that he was willing to make a statement that was not a correct statement. Since then, he has had his own Finance Minister - as a matter of fact, I raised the issue publicly - his own Finance Minister has been on the public airways at least a dozen times saying: That Opposition Leader does not know what he is talking about. We do send $557 million dollars to the banks.

Now, we owe some money somewhere else. We are not going to send it there. We are not going to give it to anybody. We are not going to pay it to anybody, but it is on the books because we owe it to somebody. Actually, we do not owe it to somebody except the pensioners. Why are the pensioners upset? I asked for the list, Mr. Chairman. Could you please send me the list of the institutions to which the Premier is going to send the $1 billion?

I got the answer from the Minister of Finance himself. He gave me the list. He listed them off. They are on a list just like this, just for the television audience. It is just like this. It lists off the banks, lists off when they are due, and it stops at $551 million. Then there is a little note on the back that says: Oh, by the way, I cannot give you a list of the rest of it because this money is not due except to individuals when they retire. I cannot list off the thousands of individuals that I will send the other millions of dollars to when they retire.

Meanwhile, the Premier of the Province stood up - or he might have been sitting down; he was probably sitting down when he addressed the people of the Province - on a Province-wide television address and he said: I have to send $1 billion to the banks. It has been proven since then, and confirmed by his own minister, that he went out and made a statement to the people of the Province that, in fact, is very, very different than what they actually have to do.

They are going to bring in a Budget on Tuesday. I say again, how would the Minister of Finance feel if we took this billion dollar bill that he wants us to approve later today - and I would expect, Mr. House Leader on this side, we will probably approve it. I would expect, and I would say to the House Leader opposite, that we will probably approve it because we understand that people need to have the money, they need to get their cheques the first of the month. We do not plan to hold anybody up, so we are going to approve the expenditure, the actual payment of $1 billion of cash today. We are not going to approve $551 million that we pay, and $400 million-and-something that we might have to pay in fifteen years for someone who has been working fifteen years, in twenty years for someone who has only been working ten years, in thirty years for someone who just started. That is not what we are approving today. We are going to approve actual money that will actually be spent this year, very unlike what the Premier tried to describe to the people of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the real solution is this, and I may get a chance to make one more short intervention before we pass this particular bill today. The real difficulty in the Province - because the other thing the Premier said in his Province-wide address was: What about wait lists? What about people waiting for health care services? What about lack of teachers in the schools, the kinds of things that happen? I tell you what: If you think it is bad now, what is it going to be like when there is no deficit, when you actually spend less money? That is when you are going to see real wait lists. That is when you are going to see real hardship on people. The Premier was right when he said there is going to be some pain and suffering. There is going to be some pain and suffering, and we will go through it together.

Mr. Chairman, I will stop my comments there. I might come back a little later in the debate, but I can assure the hon. House Leader, the Minister of Finance, that on behalf of the Official Opposition we have some comments we would like to make today in the debate, but we will indeed be passing this real expenditure of over $1 billion, not what the Premier was describing in his address on January 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. he Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A year ago, when they were the government, they announced that they were going to move to a new system, an accrual basis of accounting. They, very loudly, proclaimed that they were going to include everything now in the financial statement instead of - stopping that hiding game that they played for many years.

One of the fundamental basis of accrual accounting is that you incur all of the things that you are paying out on a cash basis. You must allow for all of the costs that are being incurred today, but do not have to be paid until tomorrow or next year or ten years or thirty years' time, like unfunded pension liability cost related to that, and post-retirement liabilities.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to get to that. I am going to get to what he is saying if he would give me time over there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: In this current fiscal year - what the Leader of the Opposition did not include, what he did not tell the people, he only included the number in the consolidated funds service that we pay for interest. In this fiscal year that is $551.5 million. He did not tell what we were paying for the health care corporation, the Health Sciences Centre, the borrowing interest on that; the interest on Crown corporations financed and funded to a decrease by the government and taxpayers of this Province. He forgot to include that $61.2 million this year. That brings it up to $612.7 million in this fiscal year, a direct payout in interest.

Also, on top of that, there is $330.8 million for unfunded pension liability. It is a cost we are incurring today that pensioners would expect to get tomorrow or next year, or twenty-years' time. If we followed his line of thinking, we should not allow for that. We should not give them that $330 million down the road in twenty-years' time when it is due. He would be the first one up on his feet complaining if we did not make allowances and did not include that. Oh, no, we were not supposed to include that. You are not going to get paid that. That is the line of reasoning he is using.

The Public Sector Accounting Board of the CICA indicated that we have to start accruing for post-retirement liabilities. There are many people in this Province working for the public service. When they retire they have life insurance and they have health insurance. They pay 50 per cent of it and their former employer, this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, pays 50 per cent. If we cut that off we would have no liability. If we said we are not going to cover that anymore we could write $1.25 billion off the accrued liability of our Province. We could write off over $70 million on an annual basis for those who are retired, but we have to include it while it is there because the cost incurred today is a debt that must be paid and it must be included on the financial transactions of our Province. That is the games that were played before, shifting money, hiding money, not counting money, not doing those types of things.

The Public Sector Accounting Board, the reason it is in it - it is in the PWC report, it is in our statements when we release them - is because on May 3 of last year that very group there, when they were the government, gave approval to start tabulating and instructing the actuary to tabulate that cost of post-retirement liability, and that must be included. On November 28, the PWC interim report showed that it could be $50 million for this year but it is a ballpark. If you delay the report beyond the middle of December to the twenty-second, we could get you a more accurate figure, and we did. We got a figure of about $93 million; on a total basis $1.25 billion. So, they are the type of figures that you can play.

Every single year in the Auditor General's report it talks about what percent of your debt servicing costs, what percent of that of revenues. In other words, that is called flexibility. There are three measurements of the health of a province: there is the sustainability, to be able to carry on what you are doing; there is the flexibility issue; and there is the vulnerability issue. Under the issue of flexibility, one of the measurements of flexibility of a province is the debt servicing costs as a percentage of revenues that you have at your disposal, and you must include those costs.

The Auditor General in his report last year, Mr. Noseworthy, said that the debt servicing costs as a percent of revenue was 23.9 per cent. This year we are up in a 25 per cent range. If we go on the same path we are on now, it will be close to 30 per cent in four years' time. It is included by the Auditor General. It is a separate procedure when you are looking at the government's flexibility to be able to manoeuver and have money at its disposal to supply basic programs and services. When you have to dedicate 25 per cent of debt service costs, that means you do not have as much money at your disposal to provide health care, education, social services, roads, bridges, salaries and everything else that a government of a Province is expected to deliver to its people. So, there are two sets of figures. There are three sets of figures in the Budget but it is important that we start thinking on one set of figures, the one true real deficit of the Province, and that is the accrual deficit of the Province. There is a cash component to that deficit, a very important part and that is an issue that is very serious, too.

That government over there increased, by many fold, over double the debt of our Province in a matter of just several years. They dug us so deep in the hole we have to allocate $1 billion a year in costs of debt servicing to meet our commitments. That is shameful. It is a deep hole we have been put in. It is going to take us years to get out of it, years and years and years.

We used over $1 billion of one-time revenue to spend to falsify the level between the true revenues and expenditures, and created a structural deficit in our Province that is going to be very, very difficult to rein in. It is going to take a period of time of fiscal restraint, proper spending, to eliminate the type of waste we have seen from a former government here in our Province, to get us back on the road again.

It is shameful that the people of this Province should have to endure that. Had they been in power another year, I think they would have ruined us. They would have put us over the brink. That is what they would have done. We had to put the brakes on. We came into power on November 6, and we had to put the brakes on before we hit the wall. We are going to get this Province back on a road to fiscal responsibility -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - so that the people of this Province will have an opportunity to be able to avail of the services that any ordinary Canadians would like to have; but, we have been put into a deep, deep hole because they spent lavishly. They spent for political purposes, they spent to get re-elected. They would not make a decision. They put billions over the last number of years, much of that which was complete waste and misdirected funding. They had no concern for the future direction, or a plan. It was ad hoc spending, spending on - I will not start to name them because of all of the bad decisions. I have said some of them before. I will not reiterate and get into specifics, but there were many, many bad decisions. Every day I go through and read things that were done, and I find out more and more and more of the horrendous decisions that were made, all to get re-elected.

What people should do when people make bad decisions is, kick them out of office. We will be years and years paying for the mistakes of that former government. No citizen of this Province should be inflicted with that punishment that was put in place by a government, and that is why they were so resoundingly defeated at the polls, because they lost the trust.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They lost the trust of the people of the Province because they did not believe what they were doing was correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the member who is shouting out and interrupting, from Twillingate & Fogo, who is not even in his seat, which he is not supposed to be -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to be disturbed or distracted by statements coming from a former minister here, who was one of the ones who participated in making a lot of these bad decisions. We can only hope that we can correct some of them. We can hopefully steer around others that we cannot correct, and do the best with what is left to give the best possible service.

I just want to say that the Leader of the Opposition is putting out figures. He talks about an accrual basis when it is convenient. He talks about a cash basis when it is convenient. He talks about a consolidated cash basis when it is convenient. He tries to throw figures out to confuse the public, but the public does not get confused because it all comes out once a year in the public accounts of our Province, produced in the fall. It is audited, referenced by the Auditor General, that they are the actual accounts, accurate accounts of our Province, and that is the one true story.

I have said it before, the situation in our Province is serious. We are going to correct it, but it is that side of the House that put us in this situation after fifteen years, many of these years of mismanagement - many, many - especially for the last few years, there has been total mismanagement of our Province's finances. It has to stop, it is going to stop, and we are going to start the road to fiscal responsibility -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that his time has lapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: A half-minute to finish up, Mr. Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: The road to recovery starts on Tuesday. We will start on the road to fiscal responsibility in our Province and try to clear up the mess that was created over the last number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have a few words to say on the Interim Supply Bill as well. It is good to see that my colleague here, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, is in Interim Supply here, a total of $65,655,900.

Mr. Chairman, it is my fifteenth year being elected, as I said yesterday, but I was only a part of Cabinet for six years. I sat for about nine years in the back bench, and I was reminded when Clyde Wells was here, and I think at one of the caucus meetings that we attended somebody talked about government and said: Unless you sit in the Cabinet and you are one of the thirteen or fourteen people who are inside, you are outside of the inner circle. You are what we call the second box. You are not part of government. You are the back bench and the government is the Cabinet.

Obviously, regardless of whether you are inside or not, in ten or fifteen years from now, or four years or whatever the case might be, everybody that sits on the side of the House will have to bear the responsibility politically of the decision that is made by the people on the front bench. That is the way it goes and nobody can do anything to counter that.

In the last three years, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to be the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and nobody is perfect. I say here in the House today, anybody who thinks that they are perfect, put their hand in a bucket of water, take up a handful of water, and the hole that you leave is how indispensable you are. There is nobody that cannot be replaced, and I recognize my colleague here, a great friend of mine, would do a good job in the department as well.

I want to say another couple of things. It has been noted, for example, here today that there is the mess that the former government created and we have to clear it up. Let me just talk about a few of the things. Lets look, for example, at Marystown in Burin-Placentia West. When the council came and said to me - they had been at it for about nineteen years, I think it was - they wanted a new water treatment plant for the town, we were able to negotiate with the town a new $3 million water treatment plant that would give them state-of-the-art water by the time it was finished. Should we have done it? Is that part of the mess. I am glad to have done it for that particular town, but it also included that government, of course, would have to pay some dollars as a result of it.

We made a conscientious effort, Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago when we did the Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure, that many of the municipalities in this Province could not afford the one-third, one-third, one-third formula. The provincial government decided to take up a large proportion of that particular amount, and the minister would know what I am talking about. Many of the smaller towns - in fact, the provincial government took up, in some cases, 70 per cent, 75 per cent, 80 per cent, 85 per cent, 90 per cent of the amount of money that would normally have been paid by the municipality. That was a conscious decision that we made with the hope to help the smaller municipalities in that part of the Province. Now, is that part of the mess? Is that part of the legacy?

I tell you, the other thing that we were able to do, for example, in the Community of Deer Lake, we were able to work with the Community of Deer Lake to build a new recreation facility, a new swimming pool, bowling alley lanes and so on there. It was shared as a cost revenue between the federal government, ourselves provincially, and the municipality. We also put a new water treatment plant in Deer Lake. Is that part of the mess?

I look at the Member for Mount Pearl, and, I think, when he was the mayor he came to see me and some of the officials, along with the minister at the time, to redevelop the townsite of Mount Pearl, the whole townsite. I believe my memory serves me correctly, something like $4.7 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Okay, $6.2 million. We decided to go fifty-fifty. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador picked up $3 million-plus from the City of Mount Pearl. Is that part of the mess? Should we have done it?

I think of the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island when she was Mayor of the Town of Paradise and they wanted a multi-year capital works program. We said, okay, we will do it for you fifty-fifty. It was 50 per cent that was incurred by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that part of it? Should we have said no?

Should we have said no to CBS and Mayor Ryan when he came in here and looked for $6.5 or $8.5 million on a fifty-fifty cost-sharing basis to put water and sewer there?

The list goes on and on. I think about the Minister of Tourism, in his district, in the Community of Burlingon. I believe it was about $1 million that we put into the Community of Burlington, and we put it there on a ninety-ten ratio. The provincial government picked up 90 per cent of the community share. Is that part of it? Should we have done that?

I can say to you, Mr. Chairman, if we had not done that for many of the smaller municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, they would never have been able to survive. Contrary to what a lot of people believe in the urban areas, I can name you a community - which I will not - in a rural part of the Province, a very small community. Do you know what they pay per year for water and sewer? Over $500 a year, for just water and sewer alone. They have taxed their people to the limit. So, for me it is important that people in - and that is not counting, by the way, the $540. That has nothing to do with the property tax, that is on top of that. So, where do the people in the smaller municipalities not be able to find the revenue? Obviously, we have picked up 90 per cent of that. What was wrong with it?

I think of the Member for Terra Nova, when I visited the town council in Glovertown. They wanted about $1 million to do water and sewer and infrastructure in through Glovertown. When I left the mayor and the council, there were certain areas in Glovertown where the sewer actually flowed in the ditches. They were contaminated. In the summer people could not actually stay out, or stand the stink that was coming from the ditch. So we took $1 million - not only did we pay the one-third our own share, but we paid a certain proportion in Glovertown as well. Should we have done it? We think we should have. We should have done it, because when you add it all up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) get elected.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, that is fine if you got elected. I had nothing to do with that. The thing is that the people decides these things, and they decided. So these are some of these things.

I think of, in the City of St. John's, when the mayor came to see me on a 50-50 $30 million. Should we have said no? We gave it to him, but here is the dollars that are now showing up that is part of the so-called (inaudible) mess that is back there.

I can think of the Member for Bonavista North, when we talk about the now new town hall for New-Wes-Valley. We went in there and we did that for them. These are only some of the few things that I wrote down.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I think of the communities in Newfoundland that needed debt restructuring. Just let me give you this one. We had a number of communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, probably close to 200 of them, that were on the verge of bankruptcy. So what we did, over the last number of years, is we spent $50 million restructuring the debt of these small municipalities. Should we have done it? I think we should. I guess I am guilty of doing it. I thought it was a great thing that we were able to do.

Some of the other things that come to mind; the $34 million for The Rooms in St. John's. Should we have done it? The thing about it, it was done. You have the new Mile One Stadium in St. John's. Should we have spent a lot of money to do that?

Then I think of the situation in Gander, a number of delegations from the Town of Gander for the new recreation facility there. I remember one of the communities in Newfoundland that had real bad water, high THMs, was Gander. The mayor, the council, and the people came and said: we need a new system for Gander but we cannot even afford the one through Windsor. Can you do anything better than that for us? After some deliberations I think that we might have, but these are millions and millions of dollars that have gone back into small, rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.Chairman, also I think about a number of situations where we had the make-work projects over a number of years. I know, like last year on the Northern Peninsula - or all together, I guess, there was about $5 million that we spent in make-work projects. I think that in the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, we probably put more than $500,000 in the district. I know also for the Member for St. Barbe it was probably $300,000 or $400,000. It was probably $1 million into those two districts. It was needed. They deserved it. Is it money that we should have spent? I think that we should. When you start to add all these things up, Mr. Chairman, then obviously these are dollars that had to go into the Province.

One of the things, Mr. Chairman, that we have to realize in this Province - and I think that all of us who come from the rural part of the Province recognize it more than ever - is we have a very thinly, sparse, population base in the Province. We have 278 communities out there; councils.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: Just one second to conclude.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: We have 151 local service districts and about 200 communities that are not incorporated at all. If you are going to provide services for all of these over a land mass that is bigger than the Province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined, to provide services in health, education and infrastructure, I am telling you it is going to cost dollars. The people of the Province, at the end of the day, will recognize that these dollars have to be spent.

I guess anybody that is in government, when you go there you do what you think is right. Nobody ever comes in here and does something that they think is wrong. Obviously, at the end of the day, hindsight can be 20-20 for all of the decisions that you made. But, Mr. Chairman, I stand by the things that I was able to do for the people that I was responsible for in the department over the last number of years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I stand again today to say a few words in support of the Interim Supply Bill. I was listening to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, former - Freudian slip there - and I have to say that I think most people, when we were on that side of the House and had any dealings with the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I think he treated us pretty fairly, generally speaking, and I think members will agree to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Then again, Mr. Chair, he was only one member. He was only one member on the government side of the House at that point in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shoes to fill.

MR. J. BYRNE: No trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six-and-half size shoes.

MR. J. BYRNE: The former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is saying that he only had size six-and-half shoes and I might have to fill those shoes. Well, I take size eleven, I say to the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and you might have a job to fill mine when this is all said and done. We do not know yet. That remains to be seen.

Mr. Chair, the Interim Supply Bill is a very important piece of legislation that needs to get through this House of Assembly before March 31 of this year, because it has to do with providing funds to pay for the ongoing services, of course, that the government has to have with the various departments, such as the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation and Works, the Department of Municipal Affairs, all of the different various departments within the government, and particularly the salaries for the people who are providing the services. Obviously the Budget will not be approved before March 31, so the situation is that the Interim Supply Bill has to be approved before March 31.

The Budget, as the Minister of Finance has said, will be coming down on Tuesday. We have had questions in the House of Assembly today concerning various issues that the Opposition had every right to ask, concerns with respect to the government and various departments. Again, there were a number of answers given on this side of the House, that they need to wait for the Budget to come down. I think that is normal procedure, par for the course, as you would say, Mr. Chair. The people of the Province would know that. Certainly, members on the opposite side of the House of Assembly would know that, and we will be continuing in due course to do what is normally done each year at this point in time.

Mr. Chair, I want to say a few words with respect to the situation that we find ourselves in today, and that is concerning the potential for a strike in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am an eternal optimist. I have to be, I suppose, an eternal optimist to be in politics sometimes. There is no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Internal?

MR. J. BYRNE: Eternal, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eternal.

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go.

Mr. Chair, we all on this side of the House obviously are hoping that the negotiations that are ongoing as we speak, have been ongoing since Sunday, will come to a successful completion by March 31. No one on this side of the House, obviously, or on that side of the House, or I am sure most people in the civil service, the different organizations, the different groups, would want to be going on strike on April 1. As we have said here today, the previous speakers, we will let the process take its course and we will hopefully see a successful solution. Again, that remains to be seen and hopefully that will happen.

The Budget in previous years, and again I said this the other day in the House of Assembly, I spoke on that side of the House many time when I was in Opposition with respect to the budgets that were brought forward over the past number of years, and often the government of the day, the people sitting on that side of the House, would say: We are bringing down a balanced Budget.

I remember, when I was critic for finance a few years ago, standing in the House of Assembly saying: Listen, this is not a balanced budget. You are not telling the whole picture. You are not showing the whole picture. Obviously, they were not and did not at that point in time. Since then, of course, the present Administration and the present of Minister of Finance, who was the critic for finance last year, stood in his place and questioned the government many times on their financial situation, on what they were portraying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We find now that last year the deficit was $800 and-some-odd million. It is not something that this Province of less than 500,000 people can sustain. We cannot continue to go on paying that kind of money for the services that are being provided, and the people of the Province realize that.

For example, I say to you, Mr. Chair, I was going into the supermarket the other day and there was a gentleman there - I would say sixty or so - putting his groceries in his car and he said to me: You have a hard job on your hands. I said: Well, we will work our way through it. We did not get there overnight. It took us over fifty years to get there, and we will work our way through it and we will solve it. He said: I will tell you now, we voted you people in to do the right thing. You have to put us back on the rails.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, that is what we are going to do. Better than that - you talk about the seniors and the issue that the unions are making with the seniors - I went into the supermarket, got in the lineup, and there was a couple there, I would say, in their seventies, and they were speaking to me again. Almost word for word, they said: You know, Jack, you and your government have a hard job ahead of you. The crowd that came before you left you in hard shape. In a very difficult situation they left the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I said: That is right. We cannot argue that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The people know.

MR. J. BYRNE: The people know. There is no doubt about that. They said: Please, for my children and my grandchildren's sake, will you do the right thing and put this Province back on the rails again? Again, I said to this couple: Listen, we know we have a hard situation before us. It took us a long while to get here. It will not be cured overnight, but we have a Premier, we have a Minister of Finance, and the people you elected to form the government this time around will do the right thing. I said to this individual: What we will do is, we will make the decisions based on what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not make decisions based on what is right for a political party, or a given individual who wants to get re-elected -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) decisions already (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The member opposite, the Member for Bay of Islands, said we are making political decisions already. Listen, we are setting priorities. The government here have already set priorities, and that is the right thing to do. That is proper planning, I say to the members opposite, to set priorities, to address those priorities when you have the fiscal means to address those priorities. Now, that is quite reasonable to me. I know it is not reasonable to the members on the opposite side because that is not what they did. They saw something that they thought they wanted to do, that was good for certain groups at that point and time, Mr. Chair, and they went ahead and did it regardless of the fiscal responsibilities, regardless of the repercussions of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what they did on that side of the House. We are not going to do that.

For example, we had the Minister of Health being questioned here in this House of Assembly - we are here less than a week - on the health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What we are committed to, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, what we are committed to is to have good, effective health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to have sustainable health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There may be some difficult decisions in the meantime, but we will do what is right, what the people asked us to do on October 21, 2003, by putting us in place to do those very things, and we are planning on doing them. We will do something in the fashion of proper planning and implementation. How you implement things is a very important factor, too, I say to members on the other side of the House of Assembly, how you implement things.

Mr. Chair, governments are elected oftentimes on promises they made. You know, looking back at the last election, we really did not make promises, other than say we would do the right thing. I say to the members opposite - and I hear them on the other side now, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Member for Bellevue - I have been in politics for eleven years this May and I was a mayor for seven years before that. That is eighteen years. You know something? I have been re-elected and re-elected and re-elected. The last time in my district I had the biggest majority I have ever received. You know something? I have never made a promise to an individual yet, to say I will promise you I will get you this or I will get you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, what I tell them is that I will do what I can for them. That is what people expect. That is what they want. If you make a reasonable effort to do something for the individuals, they understand that sometimes you are successful, sometimes you are not successful, but knowing that you will do your best is what they want. Mr. Chair, that is what this Administration is going to do. We are going to do our best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Make no mistake about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: There may be a bit of hardship up front, but four years down the road.... I had an individual phone me the other night, Mr. Chair, and he was all upset. He said: You know, Jack, I supported the party for years and years and years, back to Peckford time, and I have concerns about the upcoming strike and what have you. I am going to have trouble the next time around to vote for you. So, what do you think of that? I said: Well, I am disappointed that you feel that way but we have been in power for five months. The previous Administration where there for fifteen years and I am hoping that four years down the road you will look back on this conversation and say Jack, I was wrong, you did the right thing. You did what you had to do. Your government did what they had to do, and you did what we asked you to do. That is what I am saying. I think most people out there -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

He is giving me the sit down sign. I am I sure I will have lots of time to speak again, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a pleasure today to get up and speak about this Interim Supply Bill which, as the Minister of Finance said, is nothing but just routine matters here today; that we are up here talking about spending $1,287,000,000, which is nothing but routine, just routine procedures that is all. As a matter of fact, he said, it should not take very long.

I would call attention to the new members within the House of Assembly, because most of the time the devil is in the details. We have gotten very, very little detail in terms of what is in here, except for the headings of the various departments and how much money is going to be spent in each department. We are talking about expenditures that are going to be for three months of the year. What we are talking about here is one-quarter of the Budget. One-quarter of the Budget is in the Interim Supply Bill. We are talking about expenditures for April, May and June. Last year, at the same corresponding three months, the government of which I was a part looked for $1,349,000,000. The present government, this year, is looking for $1,287,000,000, which means that it is a $62 million difference than what we were looking at last year in terms of expenditures for April, May and June.

If you were to project that along in terms of the total year, we are looking at a reduction in the Budget that will come down next week, on Tuesday. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board will rise in his place next week and he will be talking about cuts of $248 million. So, $248 million of cuts will come next week in the Budget by the Minister of Finance.

I would anticipate that there will be a lot of surprises after the Budget, because most of the answers to the questions in the House of Assembly in the last number of days, it is almost like the Tim Horton's Roll Up the Rim to Win scenario, in that we are all here waiting to roll up the rim to see if we are going to win that truck. I assure you that the members on the back bench over there are going to spend some time rolling up the rim after this Budget comes down.

If you just want to go back and look at the kind of input that is received from the backbenchers and the people in the government opposite. I have a news release here: Motor Registration may be leaving Holyrood. For the viewing audience here: Motor Registration may be leaving Holyrood. Do you know what? The council was upset about the move, moving Motor Registration out of Holyrood. The council was upset about losing the office, but they were more upset about the fact that they were not notified about the move by MHA Terry French. French says he found out about the matter about the same time the council did. When the landlord notified the council, he also notified the Member for Conception Bay South that one of the offices in his district was going to close down, and he is the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier.

Now, the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier is a very, very important position within the government. It advises the Premier on all kinds - I have served in that position over a number of years. It provides advice to the Premier. There are staff meetings which take place where the Parliamentary Assistant is involved and sits down with the staff in the Premier's Office. It plots the planning and what have you for the Premier's Office, what the Premier is going to do, and here is the right-hand man of the Premier, his Parliamentary Assistant, a landlord in his district calls him and tells him that the office is going to close down, and we talk about a one-man show. My blessed Moses, I never heard tell of it in the whole time that I was in the House of Assembly.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) be clear now and hear what the member said. He said he never heard tell of it since he was in the House of Assembly. I wonder if he can remember, at 1 o'clock on CBC Radio, when he was speaking in favour of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, that is not point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a point of order. I am asking if he can remember -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - when he was speaking that he was in favour exporting water from Gisborne Lake. Not only that, but a half-hour before his Premier made a statement that they were not going to do it anymore and they never heard tell of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, guess what job he held in the House of Assembly?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. E. BYRNE: Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier. Can you remember that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: As usual, the Member for Kilbride and the Government House Leader is up again on nothing but a point of foolishness, a point of nonsense, which he is so used to doing in this House of Assembly.

I want to tell you, if you want me to address that particular issue, Mr. Chair, at the time that the Premier decided he was going to cancel that particular project, I said to him, I am going on CBC and I am going to come out against you. I am going to fight for the people in my district. I do not care what you do as the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I am going to fight for the people in my district! So, I could not care what Brian Tobin did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: I was elected by the people of Bellevue, to represent the people within Bellevue, and I stood up for the people of Bellevue and the people in Grand Le Pierre and the Gisborne Lake proposal. I can tell you, I will stand any day and I will fight any premier, any government, for the residents in my district. So, the Member for Kilbride, will you stop your foolishness, your utter foolishness? I have been in this House a long, long time and you are about the only member in here that gets up on so many points of foolishness.

Here we have the kind of input that the government members have. The Premier of this Province went on provincial television and gave his presidential address, and he did not even notify his caucus or his Cabinet that he was going to freeze the wages in this Province. That is the kind of government we have here, ladies and gentlemen and hon. members. This is the kind of government we have in this particular Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, we all saw what happened when he decided to vote with his constituents and he defied the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look where he is now.

MR. BARRETT: Look where he is now. We all said at the time, when the Leader of the Opposition came over and said: Oh my, Fabian, oh my! (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Well, right now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transportation and Works could easily hire him as security for the front desk, because if he moves any further out that is where he is going to be.

We saw the foolishness by the Minister of Finance when he got up and talked about the wastage that occurred by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I can assure the Member for Port de Grave that I do not mind hugging a cousin of mine. I can tell you, if I hug you, it will not be the Danny Williams hug. When I hug you, it is because I am going to do something for you. It is not because I am going to put you in a seat practically out of the House of Assembly.

Anyway, I want to get back to the Interim Supply Bill, because if we listen to the crowd opposite, the hon. members opposite - I am beginning to call them the bleacher creatures.

The Minister of Finance talked about wasting money. Well, when I became the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when I started to analyze the expenditures within the department, there was a time when we spent roughly about a quarter of a million dollars trying to plow the Witless Bay Line. We spend about a quarter of a million dollars trying to plow the Witness Bay Line and the problem was that we were hiring all kinds of equipment going down there, trying to plow the road, and the road was never plowed. There were expenditures of roughly about a quarter of a million dollars every year being wasted on the Witless Bay Line.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I hate to interrupt the member, but I remind him that his time has lapsed.

MR. BARRETT: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARRETT: No leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. BARRETT: No leave? Okay.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: What a difference, I say, Mr. Speaker, a couple of months make. What a difference one side of the House can make to the other side. We have a person over there right now - and I just witnessed it - who is over there with open arms willing to embrace anything or anybody. I must say it is nice to see.

That member, after saying his piece, is just exiting and it is too bad. I would like to - oh, he is back again. All right.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is unparliamentary in this House of Assembly to refer to any member as entering or leaving the House or being away from the House of Assembly. So I ask him to withdraw it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chair, in my exuberance to recognize the good works of this member I inadvertently did something that is unparliamentary which I would gladly withdraw. I am just indicating that to the member. Certainly I would not want to, in any way, to disparage the hon. member on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, certainly, to speak about the Interim Bill and to once again, as I get on my feet, basically look back over the last number of months, especially back to the month of October when the constituents of Harbour Main-Whitbourne certainly showed their confidence in this government and, indeed, myself, in returning me to this hon. House, on this side of the House. I certainly would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for giving me this great honour of representing the great District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

In rising to my feet today, I want to look at where this government has gone in the very short time that we have been here - I guess, this side of five months. In those five months - it was indicative by our Throne Speech, the direction that this government is going is in the direction - as the Finance Minister indicated not too long ago when he was on his feet - that we are on a journey of recovery, that we are moving forward. Despite what we hear from the other side of the House, we are moving forward in a positive direction with positive initiatives.

When we talk about initiatives it seems like every time we get up on this side of the House and talk about a positive action, there is a claim of ownership on the other side of the House, an ownership of initiatives. They are starting to list off their accomplishments when it is the government on this side of the House that are carrying them out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wishful thinking.

MR. HEDDERSON: Wishful thinking is a term that we certainly can attribute, because initiatives, to my mind, are initiatives when they are carried out. It is all right for people to get on their feet or even, in particular on the eve of an election, to say: I promise this. I promise that, and I promise everything under the sun. But promises are not necessarily commitments. They are not necessarily fulfillment of commitments.

I take one in particular - and there is a bill before this House now with regard to the student integration of loans on behalf of the provincial and federal government. This was an initiative that I clearly stated the other day was undertaken by the previous government and an initiative that members on both sides of the House have indicated is a fabulous initiative. What I am saying is that we now, on this of the House, are carrying out a promise that was made back a number of years ago as the CIBC got out of the loan business, or said they were getting out of the loan business, forcing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I just heard from the other side: What is he talking about? Is it proper to talk about this? This is talking about $220 million. I would think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I do not know if it is part of the $1 billion, but it is money. It is talking about the finances of this particular Province, and after what I just heard from that side of the House, you are talking to me about this bill as being out of place. I think not, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I am talking about initiatives of this government, a government that is putting this Province on the road to recovery and initiatives that we are not only going to talk about, but we are going to put in place. We are going to follow through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Enough rhetoric. It is action I say, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this Province voted this government in for; not rhetoric, not talk, not idle promises. They are looking for action. That is why we are over here and that is why you are over there. Finally, it is starting - I hope - to sink in. I hope it is starting to sink in.

When we talk about initiatives, Mr. Chairman, we talk about initiatives, once again, that we are prepared to carry out and that we are prepared to go forward with, and we are going forward with them. As I pointed out, one of the examples that I am talking about is the student integration of the loans, the student loan integration. Again, what I would say, is a fabulous initiative. I might say that the opportunity for this initiative was in these people's hands. They had it. They could have done it. The funny thing about it, it came off the radar screen back around the summer, around August. It came off the radar screen. We never heard tell of this during the election; never heard a word about it. It is $220 million. A substantial amount of money that this, the previous government, never even made reference to. Do you know something? It is good news. They did not even recognize good news. They did not even recognize a good initiative when they had it in their hands. They never even recognized it; could not see it because do you know why? Because an election was coming. If they mentioned $220 million, even in a good light, there was a fear that it might interrupt their re-election plans; that people might see it in a light that it was a drag on the Province, that it was not a good initiative. They were afraid that someone was going to say: Oh, $220 million, where are we? You lost an opportunity. Not only an opportunity on this initiative, but many, many initiatives. So many initiatives that once again, that is one of the reasons why we are on this side of the House and you are on that side of the House, because you did not, you did not, you did not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: And I repeat, you looked after self-interest more than the interest of this particular Province. In your urge to get re-elected you forgot about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the most important part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I am certainly proud to stand today in support of this particular bill, to make sure that this government continues on with the initiatives they have set before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was not only set before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a Throne Speech, it was set before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when we were on that side of the House. When we were on that side of the House we were a government in waiting, we were an alternative, and the people of this Province recognized it on October 21. Now we have the responsibility to move forward. We are prepared to move forward, Mr. Chairman, and we are going to move forward, irregardless of the fearmongering that started immediately on that side of the House.

The thing that I have to bring to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition was the fact that when you responded to the Speech from the Throne you did say that you are willing, on that side of the House, to stand four abreast, or whatever it was - I do not know the exact words -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four-square.

MR. HEDDERSON: Four-square it was, I say to the Leader. I hope and I pray that you are true to those words, especially on initiatives like the student integration loan -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) stand up to fellows like John Efford when they said we should wait five years (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. Just to follow through, I will say to the Leader -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, as I said, I would hope that the members on that side of the House are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder on initiatives that is going to move our agenda forward in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On those words - again, I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a great opportunity to stand and speak on this particular bill. With those words I bid ado.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is very interesting to hear the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne say what a couple of months, and less than a year makes, because I can guarantee you member, every time we announced more money for education and health care it was you, as the critic for Education, who stood time and time again and said you are not spending enough. You are not spending enough!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Now, Mr. Chairman, they say we overspent. Well, I tell you what, I have a record of everything that you said in the House and I can tell you that after Budget Day you will be brought to task.

My old buddy, where has he gone? The member from the nosebleed section. I guess he must have hightailed it out of here. I guess he is gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to show respect for other members of this House. I ask the member to withdraw his remarks, please.

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if that is unparliamentary, I withdraw my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak today for a few moments on Interim Supply. Many times we heard the Opposition over there say that they never had enough time. Today we were presented with a sheet of paper.

Mr. Chairman, if I could for a moment, I would like to ask a few questions of ministers over there. First of all, I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services what that $13 million is for? Would the minister answer that question, please? I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services: Could she outline to us what the $13 million is for, in your department?

CHAIR: I remind the hon. member that we are in debate here on an Interim Supply bill. If the member wants to pose answers, and he can pose answers, then it would be up to the minister if she wants to take part in debate when his time has expired. I would ask the Member for Torngat Mountains to continue with his remarks and when he is finished then some member from the opposite side will be recognized to speak.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And understanding exactly what you just ruled, which is quite in order, and obviously we would expect that from yourself in the Chair. Also, Mr. Chairman, you would know that there has been a practice at committee stage - which we are now in, Committee of the Whole on Interim Supply - where at any point in time any member can give leave as part of their time to ask a question, if the minister is willing to answer it. What the Member for Torngat Mountains is suggesting is that he is willing to sit and receive the answer now, or of course, it is quite possible that the minister - because there would be more questions I think he wants to ask, would make a note of the question and maybe answer them before we conclude the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the records of this House, and past practice of this House, is that it is more than common for a speaker to give part of their time to allow a minister to rise and answer a question during this committee debate.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs, to the point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite right. In committee here in this House we do things a number of ways. Number one, sometimes members will get up and list off a whole bunch of questions that they want ministers to answer and ministers make note of them. Then when the member sits down the appropriate minister, if he or she so wishes, will get up and respond to the questions. I have seen it done the other way as well, where a member in the Opposition may ask a question and if the minister indicates that she wants to get up and answer right away, that member will sit down. As long as there is an intervening speaker we can go back and forth. It does not have to be ten minutes, it can be ten seconds. So, it can be done either way. The minister is here, she is available and ready to answer the question, or if the member wants to frame half a dozen questions she can answer them all the one time when she gets up. It is completely in the hands of the member and the hon. minister.

CHAIR: The Chair has heard the debate from both sides and the Chair still stands by the decision that was made. I asked the Member for Torngat Mountains to continue with his delivery here today and use up his time. If the minister to which he refers decides that she wants to respond to those questions at that time, then it is certainly up to her to stand and be recognized.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was not just directed at that minister, I was going to ask a couple of other ministers other questions as well. The reason why is because I, along with a lot of other people, thought that we were going to come in here and be able to speak and ask questions of an honest and open government. I think today, Mr. Chair, we have seen the openness of this government.

Mr. Chair, we have a bill before us here today which I am sure we are going to pass. It has been the practice of every Opposition in the last sittings, when a interim bill is required, that they do give it the government side.

Mr. Chair, I have a lot of reservations about the new Budget that is going to come down. In Labrador, the previous government gave to the people in Labrador the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, and in Lake Melville, where the only member in that caucus sits, we have seen five jobs taken from that office in the last two months, so it is a great concern to me. I know it is a concern to all members in Labrador, to see a new department that was given to Labrador to show them hope, to give them some trust, and to work with them, and to see five positions taken from them before the end of the fiscal year. I am sure I will have more to say about that after the new Budget comes down.

Mr. Chair, I hope the government on the other side is going to be as open as they say, and I am sure they will take into consideration the number of projects that are required for Labrador. In some cases, special attention will have to be given to some areas that need more help than others.

Mr. Chair, as I said, it is an honour to stand here any time in this House to speak, but certainly the reason why I asked the questions again was because I thought the honest government would certainly give me an honest answer, but today, I guess.....

By the way, Mr. Chair, I want to look at the allotment for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, a little over $2 million. Certainly, the question I raised in the House today regarding the auditorium that is going to cost $2.4 million, obviously that is not there, so the people in Labrador who are watching today, and who are watching very closely, can certainly know in the Interim Supply that is coming down here that their auditorium is not included in the budget for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Chair, I am sure that, at the end of the day, when the Budget is brought down, that we on this side of the House will have our chance to ask questions. We have notes, Hansard, questions and statements made by every previous member on that side, and after the Budget is brought down I, for one, will be up here asking questions of ministers and the statements that they made, and we will hold them to task.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, I appreciate the question from the hon. minister. You wanted to know what the $13 million was for. It is salaries, general operation and information technology.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I guess at this point there has been agreement on both sides for this particular bill to pass right now for Interim Supply. We need it today so that people from a social services point of view can get their cheques passed, so that the services of government, roads can be cleared, et cetera.

Madam Chair, I would like to put the question for a vote upon this motion, please.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005 the sum of $1,287,423,900."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee now rise and report progress. The bill has been passed.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee has considered the matters to it referred, have directed her to report that the Committee has adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK (NOEL): That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005 the sum of $1,287,423,900

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I now move that we move to Committee of the Whole on Bill 1. Oh, I am sorry! First reading, please. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Two point of order actually. One on clarification, first of all. I understand, in my reading of the rules of the House and so on, in the Speaker's Handbook in particular, the process is that the Government House Leader move that the Committee rise and report progress. The Chair did not actually put the motion, or did not put the question, so I am just wondering if technically we have done everything proper here to rectify that situation.

I am not being ticklish here. I just do not know the effects of not having done something. I would not want somebody to say that we have missed something.

MR. SPEAKER: I am advised by the Clerk that there is an agreement that everything would have taken place at the Committee level. At this stage we are merely reporting the resolution. The Chair, when the report was made, did call for the question on the resolution being adopted a first and second time, and that has now been read. Now we recognize the Government House Leader, who will move that the Interim Supply Bill be introduced and read a first time.

A second point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, when we were in Committee regarding the matter of Interim Supply, the Member for Torngat Mountains offered to give up some of his time. He proposed a question to the Minister of Government Services.

It is my understanding in the House that the practice has been - I guess this is basically an appeal of the ruling of the Chairman pursuant to Standing Order 60(3). It is my understanding that the practice in the House is: In the event where a member poses a question to a minister, that it is not a case, as the Chairperson of the Committee said, that it is up to the minister whether they do or do not respond. The practice has been that indeed the ministers do respond so that the persons who raise the question get the information that they require. I am just wondering if we might have a clarification or ruling on that.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Normally, it is ten and ten and is all by agreement. I think, when the member asked the question of this particular minister, it was agreed, I believe, that the member used up his time. When his time was finished, the Minister of Government Services got up and answered the question that was put to her. That is my understanding. Then we moved on from there.

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

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that indeed - we are looking for clarification as to practice.

AN HON. MEMBER: He ruled that it was not.

MR. PARSONS: The Chairman ruled that it was not required that the minister to whom the question was posed had to respond. Our point of clarification is that it has been the practice of this House that if the question is posed and the member who posed it had sufficient time, which in this event we submit that he did - for example, the Member for Torngat Mountains had sufficient time left to allow the minister to respond - that the practice of the House is that the minister would indeed respond.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: That has not been the standing practice, although it has been used on many occasions here. Standing practice in Committee, for the Opposition House Leader's information and interest, is that, on this particular bill on Interim Supply, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board introduces the motion and has a total time allotment of fifteen minutes.

Accordingly, then, the critic for finance and President of Treasury Board, if it is one and the same, would have the exact same time allotment of fifteen minutes to be able to respond. My understanding of the orders thereafter are: that any member who wishes to speak in debate, in Committee on Interim Supply, has ten minutes maximum. If they go beyond that ten minute period then they can ask leave to clue up or to move on, which all members have; but, to the point, each member only has ten minutes.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if, for example, the Opposition House Leader stands to participate in debate and asks me a question, as the minister, and he is my critic, I am under no obligation to stand immediately, even if he wants to extend me leave, to answer the question right away. I can wait to hear all of what he has to say, using all of his time, and then, as a Minister of the Crown, I may get up and choose to respond to the questions or points that he made, or I may not. That is certainly within the prerogative of the government.

The last point I will make is this: If the Opposition House Leader or any other member stands to participate and they, being the last speaker, meaning if there is no other intervening speaker, then the vote on the bill is already put.

Those are the rules under which we operate. We have allowed latitude at times, and that is more by consent rather than practice or Standing Order rules where - on a particular subject, where I have seen the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board in other capacities ask questions to ministers, they have made some agreement between themselves by where they can stand up and ask a question and sit down and they have answered it that way.

Those have been the rules of the House prior to me getting elected, which was in 1993. They were the rules of the House, for example, when the Member for Torngat Mountains got elected, and until we change them those are the rules today.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mean to belabour, this but I think it is critically important that we make sure we establish the rules and make sure they are applied consistently. This is the first week of debate, the first week of participation in the House of Assembly for many of the members here - two parts.

On the point that the Government House Leader was just saying, no question, no debate, no contradiction, the difficulty we see - and all that we would ask, Mr. Speaker, is that you review the tapes to see if, in fact, something has occurred other than in the past; because we would not like to be here, as the Official Opposition, having a ruling made today by the Chair of the Committee that can then be quoted as a precedent which, in effect, is very different than anything that ever happened in the past.

Our understanding of what occurred is this: It is voluntary as to whether a minister rises. We acknowledge that completely. The practice has been used both ways. The difficulty today, as we see it - and we are not challenging the Chair. We did not in the Committee, but we want to bring it to Your Honour's attention as the Speaker for the House. Rather than say, does the minister want to respond or wait, our understanding, if you review the tapes, is that the Chair actually made a recommendation that said, I would prefer, as the Chair, that the minister not answer until after and that you continue on and use your full ten minutes.

Now, we do not believe it is the role of the Chair to determine whether or not members will consent to answer a question before the ten minutes are up, and we would not want to stand here as the Opposition for the next three years and seven months, before we become the government again, and turn around and have a ruling made today by a Chairperson of the Committee who we have a great respect for, and will respect and abide by all the rulings, but have it made differently than it has ever been made in the Legislature before.

I do recognize, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that the Government House Leader and other of the experienced parliamentarians here would recognize that this is not a small point. This is a serious and important point, and what our House Leader is asking is that you review the tapes because we would not like to be bound by a new precedent that may have been made in error or because of some inexperience, because it is critically important.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, I know we have already ruled on it. The Committee rose today on a billion dollar bill without the question being put as to whether the Committee should rise, and I would not want to see any technicality - that is a technicality. I am one of the ones who believe we have some archaic rules that we should streamline a little bit, but if it is a rule that says before the Committee can rise there has to be a vote put by the Committee Chair that says: The Government House Leader move the proper motion that the Committee should rise and report progress. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I will stop now, but it is important. Then, rather than put the question, "Those in favour of rising, aye; those opposed to rising, nay", there was no question put before you, as the Speaker, resumed the Chair again.

We do not plan to raise it as a technicality and suggest that a billion dollar bill is going to be passed improperly, but the procedures of the House are very important and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that we just use today as a learning experience and we would ask you to review the tapes with respect to the second point of order. We do not expect a ruling now but we would very much appreciate one some time early next week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing done improperly with respect to his second point. There was agreement amongst all sides of the House that we move from Committee, that the bill be passed, and that it was done appropriately. I can assure you, it was done appropriately.

To his other point about - you know, he is not big on technicalities and he understands the rules of the House. I know in the last ten years I have done a little research myself and he has made forty-three points of order and has not won one of them. So, I am not sure how well he understands the rules of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point he raised about the Chairman - no, obviously. If the Chair had said they would prefer, that is not a precedent that any member would want. That latitude has always been given to members and ministers and critics, and vice versa, that if there is an agreement by where a level of debate can take place, and Q and As can occur that would facilitate debate, that would facilitate the exchange of information, then by all means that is what we do.

On the converse, I just want to point out that there are times, depending on the issue that is before us, that it may be that we decided amongst ourselves, according to the rules, that a member may speak for ten minutes and then give the appropriate minister the opportunity to speak for ten minutes.

I do not think there will be any precedent that will hold anybody to it from that point of view. I can just concur with the request that you have made. If members need clarification, fair enough. Let's proceed and get it and move on.

MR. SPEAKER: As members know, the Speaker observes the Committee's work in his office on the monitor, and throughout the afternoon I have been listening to the entire debate. I do note that when I came back into the Chamber, questions were being concluded.

In order to ensure that all of the procedures have been followed, I think it would be appropriate for us to take about a three-minute recess so I can consult with the Table Officers. We will do that now, and then we can do the consultations and ensure that we have not varied from the Speaker's Handbook and other rules that apply to the approval process. The House will recess for about three minutes.

 

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the matter of the points of order that have been raised, on the issue raised by the Opposition House Leader relative to proceedings in Committee, as to whether or not the Chair gave sufficient directions, we will take that particular point of order under advisement and report at a later time.

On the issue of whether or not there was a procedural misunderstanding with the Committee rising, and whether or not the question to rise was put, we are satisfied that the question itself may not have been put, although there seemed to be a general understanding in the Chamber. To clarify matters, I will ask that the Committee reconvene temporarily and have the question put, and then we can proceed with the approval process at that time.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, to make sure it is correct.

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

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

I do now move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider Bill 2.

All those in favour, signify by saying ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): The motion is, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matter to them referred, have directed her to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

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

Resolution

 

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March

31, 2005 the sum of $1,287,423,900."

MR. SPEAKER: We wish to put the question for the adoption.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

The motion is carried.

It is moved and seconded this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Interim Supply Bill, Bill 2 , be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, Bill 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 2).

On motion, Bill 2 read a first, second and third time, ordered passed anad its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole have been directed to consider Bill 1, An Act to Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I know that there has been a significant amount of discussion that has taken place between the Minister of Education, the Opposition House Leader, some discussion between the Minister of Education and the Leader of the NDP and there are some amendments that we want to make. I wonder, Mr. Chair, if it is possible - if we went to move towards those amendments because there was some, I believe, wide acceptance of many of the clauses within this bill. In order to expedite the discussion and debate and move to the areas where there are some amendments that may wish to be proposed and discussed, I wonder if I may put forward just a suggestion that we move to those amendments and then whatever latitude people might want after to discuss it, if that may be okay?

Only a suggestion, I might add, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: I did not hear all of what the Government Hose Leader said but normally we do spend some time notionally debating clause 1, but in fact talking generally about the bill. I did have some remarks to make generally about the bill and about the whole issue of student aid in general and measures taken by the federal government, in their Budget, how they might affect what we are doing here.

As long as there is time for general comment of that nature, I do have a particular amendment about a particular issue and I know there are a couple of amendments that I have just seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, we can do it either way. I think there really should be time for some general comment on the bill itself and what government is proposing to do and on student aid in general. I do not know what our plan is in terms of time, whether there is any agreement between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader on time. Is it expected that we will do all of this before we close at 5:30 p.m.?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, certainly whatever time the member feels that he needs. I certainly was not trying to inhibit or limit debate in any way. It is just a matter of get to the issues of contention early and then whatever time and latitude - where there was agreement on particular clauses, that we could move to that because I understand there is agreement on many of the clauses. Where there are amendments that you wish to make, or any member wishes to make, then we can get to those now and whatever time afterwards that you may wish to speak to the general parameters, you certainly can.

I also want to advise the member as well that on Monday we have third reading that we will be moving into as well. So, my request was more designed to deal with where agreements are, get to the amendments, and then whatever time and latitude members felt would be required, we would do so. We had hoped to finish up by 5:30 p.m. but we are not confined to that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that understanding, I certainly have no objections of going through the amendments. Obviously, in committee we can do whatever we want by agreement. If all sides are agreed that we go to the proposed Opposition amendments first and deal with them and then allow whatever time is left to deal with general comments about the bill, under whatever agreement we have, that would be perfectly satisfactory and if we do not get enough time today then we can do it in third reading.

CHAIR: Before I recognize the Minister of Education, the Table needs some direction because I am not aware that there are amendments that have been presented or the Table has had a chance to look at those amendments. Just to make sure that everybody is aware of what is happening, I ask for the amendments be provided to the Table in writing before it is deemed to have them in order or not.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As just discussed, and apparently by agreement, in dealing with the amendments - and I understand there are a variety of amendments. In fact, there are a series of relatively brief amendments that will be put forward by government that has been filed with the Table Officers. I understand, Mr. Chairman, you have a copy of those amendments before you. I understand, as well, from discussions that I had earlier with the Opposition House Leader that of those five relatively brief amendments, four had been agreed to amongst all parties. However, there is one particular provision that I know my colleague opposite wishes to address and in addition to what is being proposed as amendments by government, I understand that the Opposition itself has one amendment as does the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. What I would propose, if I may then, Mr. Chairman, is if I may read into the record the amendments that are being put forward one at a time and then, at least, it would be read in. If my understanding is correct, and if the agreement that I understand to be the agreement is correct, four of the five that I will be reading will have been agreed to with the exception of one point that I know wants to be discussed by the Opposition House Leader.

The amendments, Mr. Chairman, are as follows: Clause 16 of the bill is amended by deleting of the proposed section 17.1 and substituting the following: The terms and conditions of a student loan assigned to the corporation on or before April 1, 2004 may, notwithstanding any term or condition of a student loan agreement applicable to that student loan, be established or varied in accordance with the regulations. Again, Mr. Chairman, if my understanding is correct, it is that particular point that the Opposition House Leader wishes to respond to. Therefore the other amendments that I am now proposing again, it appears, have been agreed to.

Clause 16 of the bill is amended by deleting the words `to pay' from the proposed subsection 17.4(1).

Next, Mr. Chairman, clause 16 of the bill is amended by adding, after the proposed subsection 17.4(3), the following as subsection (4) and by renumbering the remaining sections, and I will now read subsection (4): Where a student loan is assigned to the corporation by a lender, the corporation has the right to collect from the borrower of that student loan the total amount required to be paid by the borrower under the terms of the student loan agreement as amended by the Act notwithstanding a payment made by the Crown under an agreement with that lender.

The fourth amendment: Clause 16 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the word (Canada) in the proposed subsection 17.4(5) the words comma, commas and figures or the Income Tax Act, 2000.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, clause 19 of the bill is amended by deleting the number 30 and substituting the number 29.

As my colleague, the Government House Leader, indicated earlier we did have an opportunity at length during the afternoon, with the assistance of officials from the Department of Justice and Legislative Council, to review some of the implications of a number of these amendments and with the exception, I know, of one point that the Opposition House Leader wishes to address, it appears that there is an agreement on these amendments which are essentially, as I think can be demonstrated and shown, largely one of simply clarification. I know in one particular point a word was omitted and therefore had to be added by virtue of this amendment.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I guess it may now be incumbent upon my colleague opposite, the Opposition House Leader, to raise or make his commentary with respect to 17.1, because from our discussions earlier he did have some commentary that he wishes to make, and then we can get into, I am assuming, the Opposition's amendment, and then we can get into the amendment as being proposed by the Member of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My concern regarding the proposed amendment relates to section 17.1 as proposed. I speak against the amendment. I note, first of all, it seems unusual that we just had a bill introduced two or three days ago, and already we are here with the government proposing the five amendments to it. I guess, in the time frames that we had in trying to get the bill passed in time, it is quite obvious that some times we might act with a bit of haste and we do not consider some things we ought to.

In regards to 17.1, it reads: The terms and conditions of a student loan assigned to the corporation on or before April 1, 2004 may, notwithstanding any term or condition of a student loan agreement applicable to that student loan, be established or varied in accordance with the regulations.

I am concerned with that, Mr. Chairperson, because what is happening under this new law here is, CIBC, the federal government and the provincial government are currently the administrators of this student loan system. We are basically taking out CIBC and putting in a newly created Crown corporation to handle the student loans. That will require a integration of the federal regulations and the federal laws, the provincial regulations and the provincial laws. They will have to be integrated so that this new corporation can deal with student loans on a go-forward basis.

My concern with the integration is that this section, as suggested here in amendment, provides that it may, notwithstanding what the agreement was by the student previously, notwithstanding what might have ever been in the student agreement, that Mr. or Mrs. who graduated back five years ago and their agreement currently is with their lending agency or with their banks and with their governments, this will give provision that there can be variations to an already negotiated student loan agreement. It is very clear: May, not withstanding any term or condition of a student loan agreement applicable to that student loan, be established - and this is the key word - or varied in accordance with regulations.

Now, we all understand that government, by passing this corporation, is doing this in the best interest of students, and that is not the nature of this concern. By doing it this way we have not given any level of comfort to the student, that whatever they have already negotiated and got in place will not be negatively impacted by this loan. It raises the concern even more - I appreciate the fact that the minister had legal officials from Justice discuss this with me, and I didn't get any comfort from that resource either, in fact, and they couldn't give me any level of comfort in those discussions, that they recognize that this is a problem.

I asked them: Is there any way to word this amendment so that, like tax laws which are never retroactive - can we put anything in this clause and this amendment so that once passed it will not negatively impact students who already have agreements in place?

The information I am being given is that we cannot do that because of the integration, and, in fact, interest rates may change for some students on their loans once this goes through. Amortization periods on your loans may change once this goes through. Albeit probably not a lot of students, but some students may be negatively impacted with this integration caused by this bill. I think we ought not to do anything, as a House of Assembly and legislators, that is going to have a negative impact, because this bill is all about doing good things.

Yet, the minister and his legal advisors haven't been able to give me any level of comfort. I suggested to them: Maybe he should insert words here, for example, to say that if there are any cost factors to students as a result of this integration that they will not be accountable for it. For example, if the integration leads to a person paying $200 more on their full student loan balance they should be waived that. It is not their problem that they have to pay $200 more on whatever the principal sum is because government chose to do this. There ought not to be any negative economic out of pocket loss to the students.

I suggested that as a possible amendment here because -

AN HON. MEMBER: To the detriment of the students.

MR. PARSONS: To the detriment of the students, because the students are going to come back here and say: What have you done to me? You have negatively impacted me by doing this.

It has been an acknowledgment that there may be negative impacts. That is up front and acknowledged. Nobody is denying that. The extent of it we do not know, but because we know it may happen we ought to do something to prevent it.

That led to a discussion on another problem which really showed how boxed in we are going to be on this because, when you go to section 19 of the bill, 19.1(2), says, "An action shall not lie against the corporation or the Crown for damages or a loss arising out of the application of section 17.1."

We have created a situation here, with this amendment, whereby we could leave students negatively impacted, and the government has covered itself off in section 19.1(2) in saying, if we do hurt you, too bad, you cannot sue us anyway because we are the Crown.

I think that is a very untenable and unacceptable situation, Mr. Chairperson, to put the students in this Province into. There is absolutely no need of it. If we had to do this because we need to do the right thing, which we all agree, let's put the proper wording into this amendment so that no student will be negatively impacted because of the integration of the federal and provincial rules on student loans. That is the nature of my concern. Neither the minister nor anyone in the Department of Justice has been able to refute what I am saying here, nor be accepting of a principle for amendment. This, in its current form, is totally unacceptable and I would suggest would be unacceptable to the students of this Province. Nobody, whether you are currently a student or currently repaying a student loan, is going to agree that government should do something, or be allowed to do something, that could take more money out of their pockets, lead to them repaying more money than they intended to pay, or needed to pay, based on their current situation.

That is why we need to address this very serious issue here in this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a brief point in response. Essentially what the hon. member said here in the House of Assembly, we had talked about earlier this afternoon in discussions with our officials. Basically, I think, what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is essentially a point of view that we simply do not share. I understand the points that the Opposition House Leader has to make on this particular point but I can, on behalf of the government of this Province, give the students of our Province every assurance that this legislation is being done keeping in mind what, in an overall sense, is clearly within their best interests.

We have a situation right now, for example, Mr. Chairman, of this particular piece of legislation being supported fully by the Canadian Federation of Students. It is a piece of legislation which has been endorsed by our student body. The whole integration exercise is one that was supported by the students of this Province, Mr. Chairman. I have received the assurance - and in the discussions that I had with my hon. colleagues opposite outside - we have received the assurances that this amendment that is being proposed is not contrary to what is in the best interests of the students of our Province. We have a situation here, I would submit, Mr.Chairman, that we simply agree to disagree on this point. We simply agree to disagree.

There is nothing being hidden. There is no attempt to hoodwink the students of our Province. In fact, we wish to work with the students of our Province. From that point of view, Mr. Chairman, I accept and appreciate the point that is being made, but obviously we have a variance of opinion and we will simply have to leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just looking at this amendment and listening to the debate here, I find it very hard to accept that the student leadership of this Province has agreed that the minister can rewrite every student loan in the Province, to their detriment. I do not think that is the case. Obviously, the student leadership that I have talked to are supportive of the notion of having an integrated student loan, having a simplified system, having one-stop shopping, as it were, in terms of one application, not having to deal with two bodies. They are agreeable to all of that. Why wouldn't they? It is very positive; but, I do not think they have seen this amendment, Mr. Chairman, which basically says that the terms and the conditions of a student loan can be varied by the government, by regulation.

I have a loan agreement which requires me to be paying money at a certain time, a certain way, at a certain interest rates, calculated in a certain way, and what the minister is saying is that we want the right to be able to change that agreement, admittedly, according to the Opposition House Leader, potentially, to the detriment of the students, making it cost them more. I would be very surprised, Mr. Chairman, if the student leadership that I know in this Province has given the minister the right, or agrees, that the minister can rewrite their student loans and make them pay more money than they were obliged to pay under existing agreements.

It may not be a question of agreeing to disagree here, Mr. Chairman. It may be a question of a fundamental problem that we have here. I can understand if one loan agreement is different than another agreement. You want an integrated agreement. You want them to come together somehow and loop together, but if this is going to cost the students one more dollar then it is wrong.

I do not know what undertakings the minister is able or prepared to give on behalf of the Cabinet. Maybe he is not in a position to give any without the authority of Cabinet, but it certainly seems to me that if we are going to give carte blanche to the members opposite to change student loans to the detriment of students, then that is a real problem.

Maybe what we need is some kind of amendment - and the minister and his officials, I am sure, with the help of the Chair, could draft something very quickly - to ensure that whatever regulations are brought in to change that are not empowered, and the government is not empowered, to make the aggregate amount to be paid by a student greater as a result of such changes.

I can understand we need forms, we want to have one set of rules. We can just have one set of rules, but make sure that those rules do not end up costing the students money. If the minister wanted to amend his amendment or change his amendment to say something to the effect that, provided that the amended student loan agreement does not in the aggregate cost the student more money, or some appropriate wording - I am not going to draft it on the floor of the House while I am speaking, but the principle is pretty clear, that if the student loan regulations or the regulations that are being drafted require a change in the form, the form of the agreement - you know, one party to an agreement is normally not given the power to change the agreement. That is what we are asking here. If there is a contract, the contract is made - a student loan agreement is made - where presumably the student signs on to an agreement, the one party here is saying we want the power to change it. We want the power to change it even if it means costing you more money. That is contrary to the normal principles of contract, Mr. Chairman, and it is also contrary to what I think the minister is trying to achieve here.

I do not think it is a simple disagreement on a matter of political will or this or that. I think this is a fundamental point here, and the students of this Province, I am sure, have not agreed to that. I am sure they are not even aware of it, unless they are watching now and are nodding their heads out there in their offices saying: Oh yes, I agree with that. You can change this loan agreement whatever way you want, even if it does cost us money.

I would be very surprised if they were sitting there saying that right now, Mr. Chairman, and I know the student leadership. I know the Government House Leader knows the student leadership, and the Minister of Education knows the student leadership. They are not ready to sign on to that. I would very surprised that this amendment has even been discussed with them, certainly to the extent - if they are aware of it at all. They are certainly not aware that this could end up costing them more money.

I would like to ask the minister to give some consideration to putting a provision at the end of that clause by saying something to the effect that, provided that such amendments do not end up in the aggregate leading to a greater payment by a student who already has a student loan on the books.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, again I do not want to unnecessarily prolong the debate with respect to this amendment, other than to make a couple of points.

I think one of the points that the Minister of Education, in responding to the Opposition House Leader, made was, I believe, totally erroneous, and the point was just made again by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. He suggested that there is broad-based support out there for the students, from the students, from the student leadership. Again, I would suggest that is true for what we did a couple of days ago. What we did a couple of days ago was pass this bill in principle, that there has to be a new entity established. It has to be done at a certain point in time because the banks have pulled out. That has been shared with the student groups. We have met with. They acknowledge that. That is what they agreed with. They say that is something that has to be done. As a matter of fact, the streamlining of it and the two entities coming together is a good thing, but I would sit for a minute if the minister would want to respond and tell me now as to whether or not the students are aware of this amendment, that they have actually seen the amendment, that it has actually been discussed with them, that they actually know the ramifications of it. I am willing to defer right now, Mr. Chair, if the minister would want to answer that right away, or I can continue my comments and he could probably answer afterwards.

We do recognize that if the government so chooses, at a point in time when this debate ends, they can pass it just like it is despite the representations that have been made. We recognize that, and we understand that, but just one issue from experience. This, again, is a first piece of legislation. It is a significant piece of legislation. It is one that is going to involve the Student Loan Program which is in excess of a $200 million operation in the Province. I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure we get it right. I believe that is what I have heard the Premier say every time. As a matter of fact, today in Question Period he said: We will do what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, some of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the students, and I believe every member in this House would want to be assured that what we are going to pass - because right now, from what we have heard, we will vote against the amendment. We understand that will not matter, it will still pass if the government chooses to do so, but we will vote against the amendment because we believe that there is a critical error about to be made that the government does not intend.

Speaking from experience, too, a government that I was part of several years ago passed a piece of legislation in the House. There were some questions raised at Committee. We, as the government, decided that we would not acknowledge the questions. We passed the bill anyway. In the very next sitting, we were back making some more amendments because we had made a mistake. What was raised in the debate, when you actually tried to implement it, we found out we were wrong.

It was a bit embarrassing for us as the government, and we did not appreciate that, but we got a little bit, I guess, full of ourselves in: We are the government and they are the Opposition; who cares about them? But when we tried to actually implement the bill, we realized that part of it was actually ‘unimplementable' and had a consequence that we had never intended.

We can try to deal with it today in the time that we have and see if we can get it - it is difficult to do. This is one of the dangers of having a bill that you only have a few days to deal with. Here we have again a new government trying to do the right thing in - for starters, I would assume that in the Cabinet and caucus people have looked at the bill and said we have it right. Here is the government itself offering an amendment to its own bill. Having looked at it again, after a couple of days, you are saying: Oh, we would like to change our own bill. Everybody thought you had it right the first time when you wrote it a couple of weeks ago, even before we saw it. There are other amendments that members here would like to put that you have not seen until today, and because we have this pressure of time because the House did not open, we are all trying to rush it through now in a few hours or so. We do not want an unforeseen consequence. That is what we do not want.

Maybe we could get an undertaking, if there is not going to be any further change in this particular amendment, that the minister might say: Well, if the consequence, if the unintended consequence, that has now been pointed out by two members who also happen to be members of the legal community, if it happens the way that they describe and that it has been described to me, it is not what anybody would want. I was the Minister of Education for three years with the responsibility for the student loan program. The minister did say they would not want that to happen, they are not trying to anything to harm the students. So maybe an undertaking to say, if we find out after we pass it, unless we are going to do some more amending, that the unintended consequence occurs, would there be an agreement to come back here in the fall and fix it, this part of it? It would still meet the government's need to have the entity established and, if the regulation is not really intended to be used to alter the terms of existing loans anyway but it is found out that it might, then maybe we could have a friendly amendment to the same bill in the fall.

That might be a way if we have not got time to do it now and make sure, by all means - Mr. Chair, I see the Government House Leader would like to make a point and I gladly defer to him.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition taking his seat and a chance to participate in the debate.

In my almost eleven years in the House, we have passed much legislation at committee stage. I recall one, when we were debating an act, putting into being, I guess, enacting a particular piece of legislation, dealing with accountants and their self-regulating body. In the House there was a particular clause that was noted that day that we got on to, similar to what we are doing here now. After consideration and the debate in the House, it seemed that what was really being asked for was not what was intended. So we made some amendments right on the spot, on the fly.

A similar situation: The government looking for it that day, we agreed on this, we agreed on that, and the next sitting we had to come back to make a change to that one particular clause. A similar situation, that government at the time was amending its own bill, similar to what we are doing now.

I appreciate the points that have been raised, so may I suggest this, that given the fact that the points that have been raised - and I think we are all interested in ensuring that we do the right thing here - may I suggest that we move all parts of the bill, all of the clauses of the bill that we have absolutely no problems with, that we give ourselves the weekend for some more time and consideration on those where there is disagreement. We still have some time on Monday, lots of time. We will take whatever time we need, to see if there is an amicable way or an amenable way, where both parties can have a look at this particular clause, to see if it protects us.

I can assure everybody, there is absolutely no interest on government's part, or no intent on governments part - I think this will be acknowledged by everybody - and I do not think there is any intent on anybody's part in this House to do anything, either directly or indirectly, either overtly or covertly, or by sins of omission or commission, to hurt a student in this Province.

I accept the premise being put forward by the Leader of the NDP and by the Opposition House Leader and the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Look, we want to get it right, obviously. If there is legitimacy to the point, then we will take every consideration with it the weekend and see if there is something we can do.

In the process of that, where there is an agreement on the clauses of the Bill, then lets move through those now, any amendments we want to make. Let government have a second look at the amendments that have been suggested, and we will revisit those on Monday, back in Committee. I make that offer to members opposite.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the comments of the Government House Leader and I would concur. I think that this is a very serious issue that can and ought to be given sufficient time to be worked out. I certainly endorse his suggestion that we come back on Monday and deal with this issue and move forward on the other matters of concern today.

CHAIR: The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to hear the response of the Government House Leader. I have been here for, well, this is my fourteenth year. I think there may be five or six people who have been here longer than me. I want to say that one of the most productive times that we have had here as Legislators, because you know this is the place where the laws are made, has been when we have had an effective committee structure which actually looked at legislation, at some leisure. The legislation that was brought to the House was then sent to the committee, the committee had a chance to examine it and improve it, make it better. When we have run into problems it has been when we have been in a rush to do things, as the Government House Leader has indicated and as the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, has said, when we have done things hastily.

All bills have at least two aspects. Obviously there are political aspects and there is - we had a bash about that the other day, about why this bill needs to be passed now and what the government is intending; how they want to get the allowance for doubtful accounts, I think is the official name for it, the $55 million that needs to be in this year's Budget instead of next year's Budget. That is the political aspect of the bill. That is why we want to have it passed before the thirtieth. That is the real rush. But in the midst of all that, we are passing legislation and laws that can affect people in the Province; in this case students. This particular piece, as it has been pointed out, can allow the government to rewrite a loan agreement costing students money. I do not think that was their intention and I do not suspect they want to actually do that, but that might have that affect.

So, I do appreciate that the Government House Leader has acknowledged that there needs to be some second thought on this and an opportunity over the weekend to review it. I think his proposal is a wise one and I hope that this is indicative of this government's approach to legislation, that we will start using the committee process. That we will allow legislators on both sides of the House to use their experience and knowledge, whether it be of the law or whether of practical experience to do that. I think that suggestion is a good one and I thank him for making it. Perhaps we will see an improved bill, and if there are problems with some of the other amendments that we proposed over here, we will treat them the same way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I say that is what we are here for, fundamentally. We have absolutely no problem with that. If after due consideration there is still a divide between us on issues or particular clauses then so be it, but a legitimate and bonafide request to have a second look at a particular clause which is made in the spirit and intent of helping students, we will take it seriously, obviously.

Mr. Chair, may I suggest then to the Leader of the NDP and the Opposition House Leader that the clauses we are looking at amending are clauses 16 and 19, is that correct? Those are the ones that we are looking at.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven.

MR. E. BYRNE: Sixteen and Eleven. Well, what we can do right now, when I sit down, is that we move directly to moving the title of the bill and then we will go through clause by clause and where the particular clauses that you have raised and talked about, we will set those aside. Then we will ask the committee to rise, report progress and come back on Monday to deal with the other clauses. Does that sound fair enough?

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: If the Chair understands correctly, what we are asking to do here is to carry all the clauses in Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, with the exception of clauses 16 and 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: And nineteen.

CHAIR: The Chair needs some direction because I have in front on me here -

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, the section our amendment applies to is section 11 of the bill. In particular, under that section 11 it gets into Part II Corporation, under that Part II Corporation it is section 14.4(1) dealing with the number of directors on the corporation.

CHAIR: The Chair looks for direction, I say to the Government House Leader, because the amendment that I have here is clause 11, of Bill 1 to be amended

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, we will move through it step by step for your consideration, clause by clause. As we get to the particular section that you are having difficulty with, we will set it aside.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 1)

On motion, clauses 1 through 10 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 11 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

CHAIR: No, by agreement, clause 11 will be left for further debate.

On motion, clauses 12 through 15 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 16 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

CHAIR: By agreement, clause 16 will receive further debate.

Shall clause 17 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe the Leader of the NDP wants that set aside.

MR. HARRIS: No (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You want to move the amendment now?

MR. HARRIS: You cannot carry it (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is the point I am making, I say to the Leader of the NDP, but if you have an amendment you would like to make we can move forward. The minister is going to make an amendment and I will move forward on, by agreement. Okay.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible) number one be amended by adding to the end of subclause 17.7(3) the words: unless the Treasury Board so directs.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I believe we were talking about clause 17, which is actually the - I thought we were talking about the minister's amendment to clause 19 because my proposal here, and we have discussed - can we lay that aside, Mr. Chairman? I do not know if we are ready for that, unless - there is some confusion here. That is not the minister's amendment. The minister's amendment I was referring to was the one that he had here in clause 19 of the bill being amended by deleting the number 30. My proposed amendment is part of clause 16, which was set aside. So we will deal with that on Monday.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

As we said in the beginning, clause 16 has been set aside because the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has an amendment. We will be deal with that on Monday. All amendments we will deal with on Monday. So any section as we get through it, whether they are from members opposite, wherever they sit, or from members on this side, all amendments will be set aside until Monday. The things that we agree upon will pass now, and we will deal with the amendments on Monday to give everyone another opportunity to ensure that these amendments are in the spirit and intent, and are in the best interest of students. We can move forward clause by clause from here, Mr. Chair.

On motion, clauses 17 through 18 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

This is another area where there may be an amendment that we are looking at, so we will set that aside for debate on Monday in committee.

CHAIR: The Chair needs some direction from the Government House Leader since we have three amendments that are going to be further discussed on Monday. Do we need to pass the title of the bill now and the enactment clause, or do we do that after -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

CHAIR: No.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present be seated.

The Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, it is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's Dutiful and Loyal Subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of Interim Supply granted in the present session.

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (Edward Roberts, Q.C.): Before I make a formal response, may I offer a word of apology. I gather a Page was asked to come to find me. Either the Page got turned or he did not get turned. I am sorry if I kept you waiting.

CLERK: A Bill, "An Act For Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To the Public Service." (Bill2)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Mr. Speaker, In Her Majesty's Name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this bill.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

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

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

I guess it is the end of the first week and I want to say just a word of appreciation to all members for participating in the debate this week, particularly for the passage of Bill 2. I certainly appreciate the co-operation of the Opposition and members opposite for moving that and ensuring that as April 1 approaches in terms of before the Budget is debated and that debate is over with, it allows the wheels of government to continue, and services that we offer, that government offers, it allows for those services to continue to be offered.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the adjournment right now until Monday at 1:30 p.m.

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