May 27, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 37


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon the Chair would like to recognize sixteen students, Levels I, II and III, from Charlottetown, Labrador, from William Gillett Academy in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - with their principal Phil Snow, and their teachers Mr. George Jefferies and Mr. James Weick.

Also, we would like to welcome this afternoon, thirty-three students from Bishop Abraham Elementary in St. John's, in the District of St. John' Centre, with their teachers Darren Hayes, Madeline Power and the teacher's aide Rhonda Campbell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In statements by members this afternoon we have the following statements: the hon Member for Port de Grave, the hon. Member for Port au Port, the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just before we begin the proceedings, a point of order arising from information disclosed in the House yesterday, during debate on a private member's bill. I would like to have some clarification over this point of order.

In the debate yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on a private member's motion, I believe, and we believe as the Official Opposition, that the Minister of Transportation and Works provided false information to this House on two separate occasions. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and shows again why it is becoming increasingly difficult for us, as members, to perform our duties as duly elected.

Government members, I would contend, Mr. Speaker, should be equally concerned as well because I know that they accept statements from their ministers as being factual and that they actually make decisions based upon the factual information provided to them by their leader and by Ministers of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, there is a pretty large credibility gap and I would contend, as a result of the two instances I point out from yesterday under this point of order, that it is continuing to grow. There is a statement being used to describe the Bush Administration in the United States, saying that the truth has become the biggest casualty of this government. I believe, unless we can get clarification and I am proven wrong here, that it shows the same thing is happening here, Mr. Speaker.

I make reference to two quotes from Hansard with respect to the Minister of Transportation and Works. At one point, we were discussing letters that were tabled yesterday. There were two letters tabled in the Legislature yesterday, that were received from the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and the Minister of Transportation and Works, in the debate, said - and this is right from Hansard, "We have written the Prime Minister of Canada. We posed the same questions to the Prime Minister of Canada on the same date as we posed the questions to Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton."

Mr. Speaker, our information that we have is that this did not occur, it did not happen, it is not factual, and that the letter to Prime Minister Martin, if one exists, was not the same letter, did not have the same questions, did not get written on the same day, and we have a Minister of the Crown suggesting to all of us - and we have to take it as a fact, members on all sides have to take it as a fact - that the same letter with the same questions were posed to all three leaders on the same day, the day being February 24.

Mr. Speaker, under the point of order, what I am pointing out is that the facts, as we understand them, is that on February 24, the Premier of the Province, rightfully so, wrote to Mr. Harper, Ms Stronach, Mr. Clement, who were contenders for the leadership of the Conservative Party. By error, which is reported in the local media, and everyone has seen the press clippings, the Premier apologizes for clerical error. By error, the same letter was sent to Mr. Layton, the Leader of the NDP, and our information is that there was no letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada on that date, and certainly not a letter that contained the same questions as was stated by a Minister of the Crown yesterday.

The second point in the point of order, the second matter of an ‘infactuality', Mr. Speaker, what we believe is a false and incorrect statement made to the House by the Minister of Transportation and Works, is that also in Hansard later, in rising to a point of order while I was speaking, I was making the position that members of the government caucus saw the letter from Mr. Harper, which was tabled in this House yesterday, some of them, many of them, were seeing it for the first time. We know it was distributed in the House by the Government House Leader to the speakers in the debate yesterday. It was distributed to the Minister of Transportation and Works. It was distributed to the Member for Mount Pearl, as a Parliamentary Secretary, and spoke. It was distributed to the Member for Lake Melville, who is a Parliamentary Secretary, who spoke yesterday. It was distributed to the Minister of Environment and Conservation, who spoke yesterday. Then they all referenced a letter that they were given yesterday. I was making the point that many people had not seen the letter, or might be seeing it yesterday for the first time, and the Minister of Transportation and Works stood, and this is the quote, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Transportation and Works from Hansard, "The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this letter was hand-delivered to our caucus, at a caucus meeting, by Mr. Harper himself when he was campaigning for the leadership, so we have all seen the letter... We have all read the letter."

He contends - and again, we take that as factual. When we checked, Mr. Speaker, our information is this: the caucus meeting that he referred to was held here in St. John's, in this building, on March 4. The letter from Mr. Harper was received in the Premier's office on March 16. There was a follow-up and the letter itself says: I felt it might be important to follow-up our caucus meeting, which we hope you thought was useful by putting our thoughts in writing. The Minister of Transportation and Works told this House, and led all of us to believe, that the letter was actually passed out to them on March 4 in a caucus meeting. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice in this Legislature, and members on the government side are the same, that we all take our information from Minister's of the Crown who are bound by tradition and oath in this House to tell the truth. Everybody makes their decisions, and we make our representations, based on what we believe to be factual information.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, under this point of order, but I pointed out that the minister yesterday, a Minister of the Crown, actually made two statements that were far from factual and which misled and caused misleading information to be entered into a debate yesterday that then led to others making assertions based on it. I believe that we have to get to the bottom of it, because there is a parliamentary tradition, Mr. Speaker, there is an old parliamentary tradition and custom that if Minister's of the Crown are found to be stating ‘infactual' misleading information in a Legislature, that out of honour they resign. Now, I am not calling for a resignation today. What we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, and that is why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: They will find it funny, Mr. Speaker, because that is the problem here, that we do not have a level of respect in that caucus, starting from the Premier right down, with respect to this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition now if he could conclude his point of order very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My whole point is this, I was about to conclude my point of order except I was taken aback by the fact that members opposite would find such a serious matter to be something to laugh at, to be something that is funny. I sense now from the reaction of some of them that, again, it verifies that we were misled yesterday on two occasions, and I believe it is right and proper for the minister to stand and clarify it and to tell us whether or not our information is correct or his information is correct, because both of them, Mr. Speaker, cannot be factual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A couple of points. First of all, it is certainly my position, and our position, that there is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition cannot get up and impute motives on a member which unto itself is unparliamentary on a point of order. His point, Mr. Speaker, from the get go, in my view, is unparliamentary in imputing motives on members opposite who, involved in debate, provide information.

Secondly, we are not really in any position, Mr. Speaker, to take a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition about disrespect in this House to other members. Let me say that to the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that his point, if it was made in a very genuine or sincere way, would be to the issue that is before us and the issue that he raises about the information that was discussed. That is: What is the federal Liberal government's policy with respect to the Atlantic Accord? What is the federal Liberal government's policy with respect to development of the Lower Churchill? What is the federal Liberal government's policy with respect to ten-province formula on equalization? Because, in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, that is what we were debating yesterday.

My last point is this, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, to the best of my knowledge he has never attended a caucus meeting in our room, with our caucus, and I can assure him that neither will he ever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

Points of order are designed to facilitate circumstances when something happens in the House as to the procedures of the House. Members know that in this particular case there is a disagreement between two hon. members as to the facts or circumstances and the information which was communicated. In that particular case, while there is a disagreement on the circumstances or the facts put forward to the House, that does not meet the requirements of a valid point of order. The Chair has to rule that there is no point of order in this particular matter.

MR. GRIMES: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege has been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize fully, when I raise the point of order, what your ruling would be. I have been here long enough to know what the rules are. What I was raising it for, was to provide the Minister of Transportation and Works, or someone on behalf of the government, an opportunity to tell us the truth; because, Mr. Speaker, that is what strikes to our point of privilege. Now, let me briefly and succinctly state the points over again.

We have a Minister of the Crown who spoke on behalf of the government - and, believe me, I have no interest in being part of the Tory caucus, so he need not worry about me even trying to get in there. Mr. Speaker, the question of the matter is this: Even in responding to it, the Government House Leader had an opportunity to stand up and say whether or not such a letter was circulated in the caucus, because it was not. It was not.

Now, he can stand up and deny that, and they can all, every one of them, all thirty-three of them, can stand up and sign a pact, and we will go straight to other sources that we have, that verify whether or not such a letter was circulated in the caucus, because it was not, Mr. Speaker, and the people sitting in their seats - all thirty-three of them - know now that they have to tell the truth or be part of some other process.

The point again is this: All forty-eight of the members - forty-seven and yourself, Mr. Speaker - we depend upon the information given under direct questioning in Question Period or in information volunteered during debate. That information, we have to take it because under the rules, the parliamentary procedure, no one is allowed to accuse anyone of telling anything but the truth in this Legislature. We have had instances here before where people have used language to suggest that something other than the truth was told, and the person who uses the language ends up leaving the Legislature, not the person who told and said the statement that was other than the truth.

The Premier, right now, Mr. Speaker, can stand up, if he wants, on this point of privilege, and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to yourself as Speaker, whether or not that letter was circulated in the caucus meeting, and hand-delivered by Mr. Harper. He can stand up and say that, because his minister said it yesterday - and it is not true. It did not happen, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if it did happen, they can stand up and say that I am telling a lie. They can stand up and prove that I am a liar. Now, let's have one of them stand up and do it, because this is the whole point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If we have to rely upon what they say, and if we have to accept it as the truth, then there has to be some onus that it be the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The second part of it, Mr. Speaker, which we will deal with later in the day as well, is the fact that there was a statement saying that the same letter, with the same questions, was sent to all three leaders on the same day. The person who signed the letter to Mr. Harper, signed the letter to Mr. Clement, signed the letter to Ms Stronach, signed the letter in error to Mr. Layton, is in the Legislature. He can stand up and verify whether or not what was said by the Minister of Transportation and Works yesterday was the truth or not, because we will find out one way or the other.

We can find out right now, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you that it is a point of privilege if we have to depend on the information and it is not factual, we cannot do our jobs in this Legislature and it does infringe upon our rights as elected members and it leaves us powerless, just as these erroneous documents did. It leaves us with this kind of false information on which we are trying to do our jobs and it cannot be done. So, I believe that our privileges have been very much abused in respect to this debate and we should get the true answers to the issues that I have raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Members will know that one of the standard criteria of a point of privilege is of course it must meet the parliamentary references by Beauchesne and by others.

On page 13 of Beauchesne's 6th Edition, §31.(1), reads as follows, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Therefore, the Chair again rules in this particular matter that because there is a disagreement between hon. members as to the allegation of facts does not meet the requirements of the point of privilege. So the Chair rules there is no point of privilege.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate three talented and hardworking athletes from the historic district of Port de Grave.

Mr. Speaker, Craig Snow, Samantha March, and Peggy Wakeham, were recently honoured by the Town of Bay Roberts as the 2003 Athletes of the Year.

Apart from being an academic leader at Ascension Collegiate, Craig is probably best known for his athletic abilities. For thirteen years Craig has been a member of the Bay Roberts minor hockey system and has been a swimmer with the Bay Roberts swim team for the past seven years.

Also two years ago, Craig was a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games Team. This past season, he played with this Province's volleyball team in competition in Ontario.

Craig has been recognized for involvement in many more sports as well. An athlete like Craig, who performs in ice hockey, ball hockey, volleyball, badminton and soccer, most definitely deserves this tremendous distinction.

Mr. Speaker, the female athlete of the Year Award ended up being shared between two gifted young ladies.

First, Samantha March performed solidly in basketball, ice hockey and volleyball. She was a member of the Junior Hockey Provincial Champs and was named the tournament's most valuable player. She was also named to the first all-star team for the midget Pepsi Cola Classics in Clarenville. Samantha was also tournament MVP at the provincial championships for badminton and volleyball.

Mr. Speaker, tying Samantha for this award was Peggy Wakeham. Peggy has excelled in many sports, including running, badminton, basketball, hockey, rowing, soccer, softball, volleyball and swimming. Mr. Speaker, due to time constraints, it would be impossible to list all the achievements this athlete has received, but suffice to say she has performed at the top of her ability in all fields.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Craig Snow, Samantha March and Peggy Wakeham on their recent athletic recognition from the Town of Bay Roberts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday night past it was my privilege to attend the first presentation of Vive La Rose-The Emile Benoit story. The location was in the hometown of the Benoit family at Black Duck Brook and was attended by his widow, other members of the family, and residents of the community.

The play will be next shown at the Stephenville Theatre Festival this summer.

Members of the cast were: David Bennett, a local singer and musician; Tessa Cameron, star of Annie Get Your Gun in last year's festival; and the well-known Newfoundland performer, Christina Smith, who was a friend and prodigy of Emile.

The play was written by Robert Chafe and directed by Jillian Keiley.

Mr. Speaker, Emile was a wonderful man, a fantastic musician, a great composer of music and an ambassador for Francophones and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in general. He performed nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker, Emile was my friend and he gave me the best gift ever. He composed the reel, Jim Hodder's, which was recorded by Emile himself and has been recorded by the Emond Dillon Band, a US group, Out of Alba, a BC group, and numerous Newfoundland groups, including Rawlins Cross, Connemara and Danette Eddy.

Mr. Speaker, Emile was sixty-five years of age when he became famous and he is an inspiration to all people.

The play is a fitting tribute to a gifted human being. He left a rare legacy and his life was a celebration of the best that this Province produces. The story is wonderful and it will be a hit in the coming season.

I urge everyone to take in the Stephenville Festival and come and see the Emile Benoit Story.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a group of hard-working and dedicated volunteers in my district who are working towards helping teens quit the unhealthy habit of smoking.

Mr. Speaker, the aim of Kick the Nic program is to assist teens as they attempt to quit smoking by giving them the support they need. A group of facilitators recently met in Port Hope Simpson to take part in a training session on the delivery of this program. The key volunteers were Boyce Turnbull and Mildred Roberts of Charlottetown, Gwenda Penney of Port Hope Simpson, Isabelle Rumbolt of Mary's Harbour and Tanya Dredge, Youth Services Co-ordinator.

Mr. Speaker, this group received training in the principles of the program and now they are geared up to start delivering Kick the Nic program in schools throughout my district starting this fall.

Mr. Speaker, this program will contribute to healthy living on the Southeast Coast of Labrador and all volunteers involved should be congratulated for contributing to healthy living in the entire region.

I ask all members in the House to join me not only in congratulating them but encouraging other groups around Newfoundland and Labrador to start their own programs to assist in a healthier environment in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the very important step taken by the Inuit of Labrador toward the creation of Nanutsavut - Our Beautiful Land - as a recognized Inuit Territory and a third order of First Nations Government, allowing a large measure of self-determination and self-government to the Inuit people of our great Province.

The overwhelming endorsement by the Inuit in the ratification vote held yesterday shows the level of confidence that the people have in their leadership who have persevered with great determination over the past thirty years to seek a Land Claims Agreement acceptable to the Inuit.

We hope that speedy ratification by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada will follow and that Nanutsavut can be established without any further delay.

This is an agreement which I hope will endure and lead to greater happiness and advancement of the Inuit individually and collectively - we should be ready to make it work - and because the future is difficult to predict, we should have a willingness to refine the arrangements if it becomes necessary to do so to achieve justice.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important and historic day for the Inuit of Labrador, and the Member for Labrador West and I, as representatives of the New Democratic Party in this House, want to congratulate the Inuit and join with them with them in looking forward to the future with new optimism and hope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to offer congratulations on behalf of the people of our Province to the Labrador Inuit Association and their President, Mr. William Andersen III, on the successful Inuit ratification vote that took place yesterday. This vote on the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement was without a doubt the most important vote that has ever taken place for the Labrador Inuit.

Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention the fact that three-quarters of the eligible voters supported this agreement. This represents a definitive endorsement of this agreement and signifies that the vast majority of Labrador Inuit are ready to take the next step towards managing their own affairs.

This historic agreement is the result of almost thirty years of hard work by the Labrador Inuit Association. Labrador Inuit should be proud of the work that their negotiators have done on their behalf. Ratification of the agreement is a major step forward for Labrador Inuit as we move closer to the realization of the final agreement that will provide the Labrador Inuit with the necessary tools to shape their own future.

Mr. Speaker, now that Labrador Inuit have ratified the agreement, I will be bringing forward the agreement to Cabinet to seek the concurrence of my colleagues to sign it. My federal counterpart will have to do the same thing after the federal election. I also, Mr. Speaker, look forward to introducing ratification legislation in this House during the fall sitting. This agreement will come into effect once the House of Assembly and the Parliament of Canada have ratified it.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the Ratification Committee, chaired by Carol Brice-Bennett, for all its hard work in the preparation of the Official Voters List and conduct of the overall vote. Without the work of this dedicated committee this vote would not have been possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, a day of great joy for the Inuit people and certainly one of great emotion. I want to thank the negotiators for the Labrador Inuit Association who have spent months and months away from their family. Some of these negotiators have young children, and the sacrifice they made, I hope, will pay off for the people on the North Coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the government negotiators who have done a wonderful job in negotiating for the Province. I want to thank the Member for Exploits, who was the Premier of a government who believed in the Labrador Inuit Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: I say today, with great certainty, that without his co-operation this final agreement that was signed last summer would not become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I would be mistaken if did not thank the Member for Kilbride, who was a member of the Opposition. I am sure that many times he could have asked questions for the sake of personal and political gain, but he realized the seriousness. For the way he conducted himself, on behalf of the people in Labrador, I thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, while it is a day of joy for a lot of our elders, it is too late for many who have founded our communities in the most difficult times for them, as they have passed on and did not live to see this great day come about.

To the people who were relocated from Hebron and Okak and were uprooted, for a lot of these people, too, these land claims came too late; but, no doubt, it is a great day. It is a day that the Labrador Inuit will remember for years and years to come, as they begin to take shape and mold their future.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the last thing I want to say is that it is for our future, and that is our youth. Their future looks really bright. Maybe the dark days that we witnessed over the last number of years will turn to sunshine. Maybe the trips that I made, maybe too often, to travel to the North Coast to say goodbye....

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to respond and thank the minister for a copy of his statement and congratulate the Inuit and all parties who were involved in negotiations over the past number of years. In particular, I would like to congratulate as well the Member for Torngat, who, we all know, is a great representative for that area, who speaks from the heart when he is talking about the land and his people. He is certainly to be commended for the great job that he has done as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, things will change and that with this agreement will come a new way of life where the Inuit people will have control over their own destiny, that the future will be improved for the youth of the area and in all areas of life; that they will have control and set the direction that they want to set for their future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues that Standard & Poor's Rating Services has affirmed our Province's credit rating. I am pleased to say that Newfoundland and Labrador's rating remains A- and our outlook is considered stable.

The rating reflects the Province's solid economic fundamentals and government's plan to get its fiscal house in order. Standard & Poor's identified that "the new Progressive Conservative Party's stated intentions that were announced in the most recent budget to restructure the province's finances and eliminate the province's deficit over a four-year horizon, and thereby stabilize the debt burden in the medium term" as a factor in its current rating decision.

Government is strongly committed to improving our Province's fiscal situation, and we are taking steps to do just that. The latest credit rating from Standard & Poor's, a leading international credit rating agency, reflects those efforts.

Mr. Speaker, while Newfoundland and Labrador does have a number of positive strengths, Standard & Poor's also noted that several areas offset these strengths. These include the Province's large unfunded pension liabilities, a declining population, and the deterioration of its budgetary performance in the past two fiscal years. Government has recognized these challenges and we are working hard to address that.

Mr. Speaker, in developing the 2004 Budget, government was faced with making difficult decisions. We have stated repeatedly that without these difficult decisions, our Province's credit rating may have been in jeopardy. In issuing its rating, Standard & Poor's has stated: "The stable outlook reflect Standard & Poor's expectation that the government will adhere to its stated goal of eliminating its cash deficit as outlined in the current four-year fiscal plan. Any material deviation from the province's stated plan to balance the budget in this time frame could result in downward ratings pressure."

Mr. Speaker, this government inherited a serious financial situation and it is this government who will take the necessary steps to fix that situation. It is encouraging that Standard & Poor's has recognized government's plan to put our Province on a sound financial footing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for a copy of his statement. I guess you just confirmed what we said all along. We are not drowning in debt and we are not on the verge of bankruptcy. Moody's have just confirmed that and, in fact, they confirmed the same thing in December and January as they are today.

Under a Liberal Administration we have had the best credit rating ever in the history of our Province since Confederation. There is one thing I will say that you have been successful at, that is with the propaganda that the Premier announced on January 5. He was successful in turning around the people's attitude of this Province. The whole economy is reeling because of what the Premier said on January 5. You have been successful in that, in painting such a picture, but you have been proven false again today by what you just said here because Moody's has said that we have an A- rating and it is maintained, as it has been.

I am going to tell you now what you have done to the economy. You say you have a plan to cut the deficit in four years, but what is your plan? It is not a balanced one. It is slash and burn. All you have done is devastate communities. You have dropped programs, you have killed services and you have not taken a balanced approach at all. In fact, look at the retail sales for the month of March.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement, which I received half-an-hour after the House started this afternoon. Standard & Poor's has confirmed what all of the rating agencies said last fall, that the Province's debt is really stable. We are glad to hear that it continues to be stable, despite the efforts of this government to disrupt the economy. Although our credit rating is stable, Mr. Speaker, one thing that was announced in the last two days was that Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province - the only Province! - in Canada whose retail sales have decreased in the last quarter instead of increased, and that is because of the doom and gloom preached by this government starting on January 5.

Mr. Speaker, it does not take a genius to stop spending money. What it takes is some leadership in building and growing the economy, and that is what has been lacking from this government opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to draw attention to the public education campaign launched this morning by the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. The campaign is called Safe Work. The goal is to promote safety at work in an effort to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths.

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that I delivered another statement to my hon. colleagues recognizing the National Day of Mourning for those injured or killed on the job. It was a reminder that every year thousands of workers in our Province suffer as a result of workplace accidents. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that the Safe Work campaign will tackle this issue head on, making our workplaces safer for all.

As minister responsible for the Commission, I am extremely satisfied that the impact of injuries on the worker, the employer, and the Province are being recognized. When a worker is injured, it affects colleagues, family, and the community. Workplace injuries also have a negative effect on businesses and the economy.

It is important to note that through the efforts of employers and workers, some progress has been made to reduce injuries on the job. The total number of accidents is down about 10 per cent from just two years ago; however, to build on this success, it is critical that we create and embrace a culture of safety so that, in time, accidents are simply unacceptable. To this end, Mr. Speaker, the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, through the Safe Work campaign, is committed to changing people's attitudes, making safety a priority in the minds of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Safe Work campaign, Mr. Speaker, is a sound approach to raise awareness, to educate, and, ultimate, to save lives.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I guess today we see the results of the work of the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. The role of this Commission, I guess, initially it was set up to provide benefits and income to injured workers, but over the last number of years under the great leadership at workers' compensation, we have been focusing more and more on prevention. I think that is the real key, that we should not have any injures in our workplace. That is the ultimate objective. I do not think any worker can be compensated in any way for any injury. That is not acceptable. I think, by leading this campaign, it is appropriate at this time. In Newfoundland and Labrador right now we are reaching the peak construction season and the peak fishing season in terms of the hazardous occupations that we have in our workforce. To have a conscious effort made and publicity to make sure that people are conscious of their safety -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: Just one comment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. BARRETT: I think it is important, too, because at this stage in the year we have a lot of young people entering the labour force for the first time, a lot students and a lot of young people. We all know the tragedy that can occur in the workplace with some young people who are not aware of the safety procedures. Anything that we can do to promote safe practices in the workplace is very, very important and I want to compliment the minister and the workers' compensation on this great initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. Obviously we, too, are supportive of any initiative taken by government that will further workplace health and safety. Also, Mr. Speaker, the best way to have a sound workers' compensation commission financially is to reduce accidents in the workplace.

I want to say to the minister that in conjunction with the Minister of Education, I think it would be appropriate to look at having, as part of the curriculum in a high school course, to teach occupational health and safety because many of these young people, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in their lives, will be going out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Many of these young people will be going out in the workplace for the first time. All workplaces are not up to what we would like when it comes to informing young workers of occupational health and safety, and meeting the standards and their right to refuse - the right to refuse, which, by the way, is twenty-five years old in this Province. I am proud to say that we were the first Province, I believe, in Canada to have the right to refuse in 1978, and that mainly came about as a result of my local union, where we had three deaths in nine days, and the McCarthy Inquiry. Those people who were in government at the time will probably remember.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that every opportunity we have be used to further safety and health in the workplace. I really do think that the Minister of Education and the Minister responsible for Labour should look at the introduction of a course outline to be included in the curriculum of high school students, so that they will have first-hand knowledge in the classroom prior to going out into the workplace for their first jobs.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers? Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as late as yesterday afternoon, Cabinet Ministers and members of the government caucus were still saying that letters were written to all the federal party leaders for their position on issues of importance to the people of this Province, and yesterday responses from two of the leaders were actually tabled in the House.

My question is for the Premier. I ask the Premier: Can he confirm that he has actually written a letter to the Prime Minister, as stated by his Minister of Transportation and Works yesterday, on the same day, posing the same questions? In the spirit of yesterday, where letters were readily tabled, will he table the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister himself would have no direct knowledge of exactly when those particular letters went out. He may know part of it, he would not know all of it. They went out from my office.

A letter did, in fact, go to the Prime Minister but it was very recently. It did not go out at the same time, if that is the information that is required.

What I can state is, there is an ongoing dialogue with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister called me 9:30 yesterday morning, which is for the third time in two weeks. The issues, of course, that were raised in the letters to the various leaders of the Conservative Party, and as well to Mr. Layton, are the same questions that were ultimately put to the Prime Minister. They are also the same issues that were discussed with the Prime Minister, going back as far as December when I had that first meeting with him, which was the very first meeting we were fortunate to have with any Premier in the country. I was very proud of that and we got all these issues on the table at that point in time.

Each and every time I have had an opportunity to have a conversation with him, and/or any of his ministers, I raised most of these issues that are of importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think that is what is important here. The issue is not when the letter was written. I mean, to make small political hay out of something like that, when the letter was - who cares when the letter was written. The letter was written. We had a conversation with the Prime Minister. We are continuing to move the people's agenda forward. That is what should be important to the Leader of the Opposition.

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.

I think it is a bit of a condemnation of the whole government when the Premier would stand up and say telling the truth is not important. Because the minister, yesterday, said that the same letter was written on the same day, asking the same questions, and that is a serious matter for the credibility of this government that expects us to believe what they say and expects the people of the Province to believe what they say.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation again, there was no letter written before. There is a recent letter. I ask the Premier: Would he table the recent letter that he sent to the Primer Minister?

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 would only be too delighted. As I said, I think that letter was probably sent as recently as yesterday or the day before. I would only be too delighted to send that letter.

To be quite honest with you, the reason that letter was sent to the Prime Minister and to the Liberal government was to make sure that they had an equal agenda, they were provided the same opportunity that was provided to the other federal parties. As well, you know, the current government does not have the benefit of publicly disclosing every time we have a conservation. I have had conversations, of course -

MR. E. BYRNE: Or what we have presented to them.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Or what we have presented to them, because that is done in good faith and a lot of it is confidential. As things become of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as we make progress, I will keep this hon. House informed and I will keep the hon. gentleman opposite informed; but, you know, with all the issues that are of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - to tend and try to twist the facts, and pretend that someone is not telling the truth or someone is lying to this House, nothing is further from the truth. To get up and go through this charade day after day after day does not serve the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador properly.

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 stand and confirm that Mr. Harper's response was passed out, hand-delivered, in the caucus meeting on March 4?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at the meeting which we had, which is really an internal caucus meeting and is really, quite frankly, none of the business of the hon. gentleman opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Do you know something? I was going to give him an answer, but I am not going to bother.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that with three questions and the answers, we have identified absolutely conclusively that the Minister of Transportation and Works provided false information of this Legislature on two occasions yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, again, if the Premier shared some of the information with this caucus, they might not have embarrassed themselves yesterday by entering into a debate where they asked: Where is the written response from the Prime Minister?

There was no written response because the letter was not sent until yesterday, and I believe that is important, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the Premier indicated that he was delighted about the health care funding announcement from the Government of Canada and from the Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, and yesterday two Cabinet Ministers and two Parliamentary Secretaries indicated that they were delighted with the responses from Mr. Harper on issues of relevance to the Province. I ask the Premier: Is he as excited about the responses from Mr. Harper as his two Cabinet Ministers and his two Parliamentary Secretaries were yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I would like to know how excited the hon. member opposite was, when he heard the news from Mr. Harper yesterday.

Sure, we were pleased. Any time there is progress made on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we are very, very pleased. Mr. Harper came to town yesterday. Of course, as the hon. gentleman opposite has been suggesting, that we tried to move the agenda forward for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it seems like when we start to get results he gets annoyed; he does not like what he hears.

Well, we got results yesterday; and the announcement yesterday, according to our internal calculations which were done last night by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, is that the announcement yesterday, in the first year, could mean an additional $245 million to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a lot of money.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, $245 million is a lot of money and I am very delighted about that, quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I concur. I believe that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were pleased to hear the announcement yesterday with respect to that issue, and that we look forward to whomever forms the government delivering on exactly that type of proposal.

Let's ask about a couple of others that were in the response from Mr. Harper, in the letter that was tabled here yesterday - a commitment with respect to the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. A direct question asked by the Premier: What about your position on divesting to Newfoundland and Labrador at no cost the 8.5 per cent share?

Again, members were standing yesterday and saying they were delighted with the answer. The answer was, "I support the eventual disposition of these shares that maximizes the value to Canadians."

Is the Premier satisfied that is the kind of answer that he is going to accept and do nothing else about, or is he going to try to get a different answer than that some time during this election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seeing how we are in the process of exchanging letters, I would be interested to know if the hon. gentleman opposite or the party has written any of the leaders to express their interest, because they seem to be interested in an all-party committee; they seem to be interested in asking what we are doing.

It is your party. It is a Liberal government in Ottawa, a government that you should have a good relationship with. I would like to know what your party has done to advance that relationship on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because quite frankly we are all in this together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We are all here as representatives of the people. We are all here to advance the cause of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What are you doing about it? What are you doing to help? Absolutely nothing.

Now, when it comes to the Hibernia interest, yes, we are trying to purchase it. I made a statement on that a long, long, time ago, as you know. I have mentioned it to the Prime Minister on several occasions. I have mentioned it to Mr. Harper, and I also discussed other things with Mr. Harper yesterday with regard to a guarantee on the Lower Churchill. Now, of course, that is something that the hon. gentleman opposite would not understand because he seems to think -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the Premier to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He seems to think that Hydro has another $10 billion in its pocket that it can go out and borrow. Well why didn't you go ahead with the Churchill yourself, if you had enough money to do it? You know why. You just simply do not understand the process.

I talked to Mr. Harper yesterday, and Mr. Harper indicated to me that he was very interested in considering a guarantee for the Lower Churchill. That is the kind of progress I am making. Why don't you just get on the bandwagon and help us out for a change?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. Yesterday, the Premier instructed his caucus colleagues to stand and speak against a motion where we would do this together because he did not want us. Today, he says, why don't you get on side with us? Yesterday, the line was: We are going to do it without you; we do not want you. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Premier: Did he yesterday, did I just hear him say that yesterday in his position, in his meeting with Mr. Harper, that he changed his position for the Province with respect to the 8.5 per cent? Because the letter that he wrote on February 24 said: What is your position in supporting the transferring, at no cost, to Newfoundland and Labrador of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia share?

He just said: I spoke to Mr. Harper yesterday about trying to purchase the 8.5 per cent. Have you changed the position on behalf of the people of the Province, without even consulting with your own caucus?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to check Hansard to see if the word purchase was used. No, my position has not changed on that. I have asked him to transfer -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I did - actually, it was just a misnomer. That is all that was. I have actually asked him to transfer it at - it may be a purchase at a cost of $1, because there has to be some consideration, in any legal transaction, as you would understand, at least nominal consideration. So, technically, $1 would be a purchase. Having said that, we are looking to have it transferred at no cost to the Province because we think that is the right and proper thing to do. Our position clearly has not changed.

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.

I am glad to have the Premier speak, because the story changes that often that he has to check Hansard himself to find out what he said two minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, another commitment asked for in the letter to Mr. Harper, which was sent by mistake to Mr. Layton, assuming he was running for the Conservative Party leadership, it asked if he would ensure that future health care funds be based on need rather than per capita. The response was, "The Equalization program already incorporates a measure of need." I take it that means no. He said no with respect to future health care funding being based on need. Is that a satisfactory answer, as four of your colleagues in your caucus said yesterday, that they would see this as a contract, that they would gladly hold Mr. Harper to if he becomes the Prime Minister? Is that your position, that is satisfactory?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition has to understand that when you move from a five-province formula to a ten-province formula that Mr. Harper committed to on a stand-alone basis, that would have meant to us a $150 million on a stand-alone basis. That is the reference to equalization because a ten-province puts $150 million more into the coffers of this Province to use for health care or to use for numerous services here in our Province. You have to look at things in the context of the overall policy, and a ten-province formula gives $150 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - far more than that person could obtain when he was Premier of this Province and many times more that we will see before this is over.

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, the biggest problem for Newfoundland and Labrador is that the Premier, on behalf of the government, has already agreed to leave the equalization formula unchanged if the Liberals get re-elected. He has already agreed to that.

Mr. Speaker, another one of Mr. Harper's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - pre-commitments, and I am glad he asked about a guarantee for development of the Lower Churchill. The actual question in the letter to Mr. Harper, Ms Stronach, Mr. Clement and to Mr. Layton, not to the Prime Minister, unless we see it in the new letter that was sent yesterday because there were members in the House saying the letter was sent two months ago. It said, "Will you support - with respect to Hydro - the Lower Churchill development, including the provision of a federal government guarantee if necessary?

I am glad he raised it, because the answer was this - and the members yesterday said this is a contract we would gladly hold Mr. Harper to. This satisfies us, said the Member for Lake Melville. The answer is, "I support the further development of hydro power resources in Newfoundland and Labrador." Is that a satisfactory commitment? Is that what a real answer is to whether or not a guarantee will be provided if necessary? Is that the kind of answer that this Premier is satisfied to receive from a potential Prime Minister of the country? Is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the hon. gentleman opposite that I had conversations with Mr. Harper yesterday. This was, of course, written a couple of months ago. It was an attempt to get a preliminary position on all issues of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we quite successfully did that before he became leader of the party. I did indicate yesterday in a conversation with him that I discussed the issue of guarantee and I could say to this hon. House that he was favourably disposed. But I would not put words in his mouth and say he made a commitment, because at that particular point in time I did not ask him for a commitment. I am establishing a good relationship with these people. I intend to continue to have a good rapport and have a co-operative, collaborative relationship with these people, unlike the hon. gentleman opposite and the hon. members opposite who had a very, very poor relationship with Ottawa. They seem to be quite concerned and discontent of that fact that maybe we might advance the cause of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and maybe we might continue that good relationship.

I understand as well that a friend of the Member for Port de Grave - the minister has even asked to meet with your caucus and has been doing so for the last month. You do not want to even give him a meeting. He is the Minister of Natural Resources. Continued bad relationship with Ottawa.

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.

Again, maybe the Premier should spend a little more time meeting with and discussing these matters with his own Cabinet ministers and his own caucus. His Minister of Transportation and Works stood yesterday, referenced this letter from Mr. Harper, when it said: Will you support these things? It did ask for commitments, unlike the Premier just said. He changed his story. The Minister of Transportation and Works, on behalf of the government, saying: If the Conservative Party of Canada forms the government this letter is the basis of a contract I would expect them to live up to. Now, the Premier up saying: I did not expect that to be the answer. Well, your minister expected it to be the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The question is, Mr. Speaker, and I know they do not like the questions because, again, the minister misled the house twice yesterday. The Premier is changing his mind (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation. I am asking the member, asking the question, to get to his question very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

A question with respect to a commitment on 5-Wing Goose Bay, that they are so proud of. Mr. Harper's commitment when asked: Will you support military training in 5-Wing Goose Bay? The answer, "I have committed to an immediate injection of $1.2 billion into defence spending...". No mention of Goose Bay whatsoever.

The Member for Lake Melville stands up yesterday and says, just like the Minister of Transportation and Works: This is a contract that is good enough for me; that is a good enough commitment for me. Is that the level of commitment the Premier is satisfied with? His Member for Lake Melville is satisfied. The Minister of Transportation and Works is satisfied. The Minister of Environment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied, we are satisfied, the Member for Lake Melville is satisfied, because Mr. Harper stood in our caucus and told you that there would be a commitment to 5-Wing Goose Bay. That was verbatim. That was face-to-face. That is as good as it gets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the new Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, was in town. He knows there will be a windfall for government because of increased gas prices. Mr. Harper knows it. He even admitted it and he has a plan to give consumers a break. In fact, all the federal party leaders recognize there is a tax windfall for government, and they are all jockeying to present alternative policies to deal with this issue. The only person claiming that there is no windfall is the Minister of Finance of this Province.

I ask the minister again: Will you do an analysis at the end of this year, like the feds are going to do, to determine the amount of the windfall, or are you still trying to hide this money and say it does not exist?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do analyses on an ongoing basis, and she will see a good analysis at the end of the year. She will see it when the next Budget is produced. You will see the line items and the revenue on every single item and expenditure. You won't see them disguised under three different sets, you will see them under one true basis of accounting, the accrual basis of accounting. That is what you will see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, it appears he is not going to give the answer.

Well, given the fact that the part of the increased revenue this government will receive because of higher gas prices is from the harmonized sales tax or the HST, any changes would require the agreement of the provinces involved, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and ourselves.

Will the minister co-operate with the other provinces and the federal government, to allow a return of revenue on prices over eighty-five cents a liter, or are you even considering playing a role in what is being proposed by your own leader, Stephen Harper?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member asked me questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked me yesterday, and the Leader of the Opposition asked questions yesterday that the member asked me a week ago. I wish they would exchange their questions and get them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they must be getting to the bottom of the barrel now when they have to exchange questions and ask them several times over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will say, for the third time, that either they don't listen very well, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SWEENEY: Stand on your feet, Loyola, stand on your feet.

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace would let me answer, I would be delighted to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer rather quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I got the impression the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace wanted to be the third one to ask it.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it -

MR. REID: Get up and answer the question.

MR. SULLIVAN: And now the Member for Twillingate & Fogo wants to be the fourth one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance talks about answers. I have had questions tabled here for weeks with no answers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The minister knows that Fishery Products International is governed, to some degree, by an act in this Legislature. He should also know, like most people in this Province already know, that the marketing and value-added division of FPI is the most valuable part of that company. In fact, it makes up approximately 55 per cent to 60 per cent of the sales. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that FPI is considering selling 40 per cent of that division. I ask the minister if he can give us an explanation of what the board of directors is proposing to sell. For example, is it the entire marking division of FPI?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am pleased to inform the former Minister of Fisheries that, unlike himself, when he was Minister of Fisheries and stated that he was just as much in the dark today as he was yesterday - I remember him saying that - we are very much in the light today. Unlike the former Premier, we are very interested in the FPI issue, extremely interested, and as a result of our interest we are asking a lot of questions. We are asking an awful lot of questions.

I have actually met with the officials, as has the minister, the officials of the company, and we are fully informed. As a result of the questions that we are asking, they are coming back with answers and we are actually asking more questions because we are interested in the answers that they are giving us.

Having said that, we are taking advice from the Department of Justice, who are involved in this as well, and the Department of Fisheries. My office is involved as well. We have also gotten a legal opinion on this particular matter. We are very much on top of this issue.

As the hon. gentleman opposite knows, this is a public company and we have to be very, very careful -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer as quickly as possible.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a public company and, under securities legislation and requirements and regulations, we have to be very, very careful what we disclose. Having said that, you need to know that the government, your government, is all over it. It is in good hands. We are again extremely, extremely interested in the outcome of this, and we will continue to ask whatever questions are important to this issue.

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 certainly hope that the Premier is getting more answers from FPI than I am getting from him, because he did not answer the question that I asked him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: What the Premier just said is, trust me. Well, 4,000 public servants trusted you, Mr. Premier, before the election.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier - because he will not let the Minister of Fisheries answer the question - Mr. Premier, FPI employs thousands of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Anything that affects FPI affects those people in these rural communities.

I ask the minister if he will monitor the issue closely, and if anything that is detrimental to the people's jobs comes about - if, for example, they sell a division of that company that is going to have a detrimental impact on the employees of FPI in this Province - would you consider, or will you change the legislation to prohibit it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this company, and dealing with this file, I can assure the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that we will do whatever is in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our sole intention; that is our sole purpose.

With regard to a non-answer to his first question, I think he understands here that this is about exposing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to liability for disclosing information that should not be in the public domain, that is proprietary, confidential information. I am sure you would not want us to do that and cost the people of the Province liability and damages for disclosure of that information.

I just want to make sure it is very clear as to why I cannot give you a direct answer. You can ascertain from reading the papers and from what is available in the public domain as to what the general plan is. You would have the same information there that the general public has. With regard to securities legislation, we have to be very, very careful how we handle that. That just comes from a legal opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is time for a very quick supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, we will be watching FPI and we will also be watching you.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the real Minister of Fisheries can answer this question because it is about a somewhat different issue.

Last year, Minister, you were a member of an all-party committee of this House that dealt with the closure of the cod fishery in the Gulf and in the Northeast Coast of our Province. At that time you made a number of recommendations to the federal government. One of them was for an early retirement package for fishermen and plant workers in the Province. I ask the minister, does his government still support this initiative, this cost-shared retirement package for fishermen and plant workers? If so, what discussions have you had with Ottawa pertaining to this issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the minister, I want to remind people we are running out of time in our commitments to the members of the New Democratic Party. I can let the minister have about thirty seconds to give an answer.

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 can confirm to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that we have had discussions, I have had discussions, with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on this matter on a couple of occasions over the past seven months. I have indicated to him our desire to see an early retirement program for fisheries workers, and indicated that if the federal government was to go down that road we would consider participating. That is well known to the fishermen's union as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Last fall, our party campaigned on the creation of a Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Corporation, two cornerstones of which would be the publicly-owned Newfoundland Power and an equity position in offshore oil and gas, starting with the transfer to our Province of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia share owned by the Government of Canada.

We are extremely delighted, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that the NDP federal leader has committed to a transfer of the Hibernia share to the Province, and has done so in writing to the Premier. Was the Premier any more successful yesterday in talking to Mr. Harper than he was in getting an answer in March of this year? Did he get any better commitment than he got from Stephen Harper when he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, now that he is the leader, when Mr. Harper said that he wanted to divest these shares in a way that would maximize the value to Canadians? In other words, no, he does not want to transfer those shares to Newfoundland and Labrador. Did he get a better commitment yesterday than he got before?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. gentleman for that question.

I must say, I was very pleased with the response from Mr. Layton. He was very clear and very definitive on his position, as to what it was. That is, of course, consistent with our position, consistent with your own party's position.

There was no indication yesterday, whatsoever, that Mr. Harper was prepared to change his position; however, you have to understand sort of the atmosphere. We had a very quick conversation before we went in. We had a discussion at the table at lunch. Major issues were raised just on sort of a peripheral basis, but not in a situation where you could really drill down. So, there was no change in his position officially yesterday. Again, I do not want to put words in the mouths of these people, but from his letter there is no official change in his position.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows, of course, that the 8.5 per cent equity share in Hibernia, the transfer of that to this Province is a tangible way in which the Government of Canada can show that Newfoundland and Labrador is the owner of that resource and that it should be transferred. Has he had any response or luck with the current Government of Canada and the Liberal Party in terms of that issue, or is he in the same position with the Liberal Party of Canada and the current Government of Canada as he is with Mr. Harper?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a position which we, as a party and as a government, feel very, very strongly about and we will continue to advocate. It appears that the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of Canada, at this point, are not prepared to change their position; however, there hopefully will be a total negotiation on this together with issues on the Atlantic Accord, together with issues on the ten-province standard.

As you understand, that is all part of the negotiating process, but it is certainly our intention, as a government, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have a greater stake in their natural resources, in their offshore oil and gas reserves. We are prepared to look at that and we are prepared to look at expanding the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as an energy corporation. That is something we are actively looking at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, can we have it confirmed that the Premier did commit, during Question Period, to table the letter that he sent to the Prime Minister in the last day or so?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Each and every day when the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied or he wants to get more information, he is using points of order to extend Question Period. All he needs to do is look at Hansard. The Premier's response was very clear.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) what he said.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hansard is not ready yet, for the Leader of the Opposition's knowledge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Hansard of today comes out tomorrow. He cannot look at today's until tomorrow.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is this: They continue to use points of order as a way to extend Question Period. Now, if they are not satisfied with the answers, that is all we can do. The fact of the matter is that it is very clear what the Premier said. He already knows it. Have a look at Hansard tomorrow if you do not like it, or go out and listen to the tapes yourself, but points of order are for infractions of the House, not to extend Question Period for the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, a very brief comment on the point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order - because I take it that was a new point of order that you did not have a chance to rule.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it was not.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: To the point of order?

I will sit down when the Speaker tells me to sit down, I say to the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, in referencing checking with Hansard, indicated that it could not be checked today, and contradicted himself even before he sat down and said you can go out and check the tapes.

The Speaker knows, and everybody in this Legislature knows, that the Speaker, himself, you yourself, Your Honour, have actually made rulings in this House on the same day because everybody here knows that it can be verified what you said just by checking with the people in Hansard. The written record does not come out until tomorrow but the record is now available and he should apologize again for misleading the people about the circumstance with respect to Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Chair did, on two occasions last week, remind members that points of order are for parliamentary procedures. They should never be used to extend Question Period or to ask questions for which answers which were given may not have been acceptable or deemed to be appropriate by the person asking. Question Period has an assigned time. It is thirty minutes. There is no point of order. I ask members to be cognizant of the Parliamentary Rules and our Standing Orders.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table the 2003 Annual Report for the Labour Relations Board, which reports to this department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report the Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; Environment and Conservation; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Business, and Natural Resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: On today.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to report that the Social Service Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the Department of Health and Community Services; the Department of Justice; the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment; the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Department of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: On today.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to report that the Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission; the Department of Transportation and Works, and the Department of Government Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: On today.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and 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 to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 28).

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 29).

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend The Automobile Insurance Act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: - The Insurance Companies Act and The Highway Traffic Act to Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance. (Bill 30).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 26).

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 25).

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 27).

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in Question Period last evening the hon. Opposition Leader asked to have the letter tabled that Mr. Saunders wrote my department. I checked with Mr. Saunders and he has no problem with me tabling this letter. I have now tabled it.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on a petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents in the community of Williams Harbour in my district, Mr. Speaker.

The community of Williams Harbour is only about eighteen kilometres or so from the Labrador Highway. This is a community who thought they were going to be connected by road this year, actually, Mr. Speaker. All of the engineering work was completed, the environmental review was completed, the routing for this road has actually been determined and, to my knowledge, there was even some bridge that was made available for use across the river. The only thing outstanding was a commitment from the new government to continue with this construction and to make the funds available under the Trans-Labrador Highway Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen and, in fact, what the government opposite did, and what the Minister of Transportation and Works did, he, in the Budget, through the Minister of Finance, announced that the Williams Harbour access road would not be completed but rather was under review, was put on hold, was being examined as to the economic feasability of constructing this particular section of highway.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there are very few roads in this community that were built based on economic viability. Actually, I would question whether any communities in those small communities in rural areas of the Province have a highway based on economic viability. It is based on the requirement to service people, as a government, to allow them to have access to services, whether it be health care services or other government services that are provided. This is a situation where, in the community of Williams Harbour, for a cost of about $5 million, money that is available in the Labrador Transportation Fund, to be spent in communities in Labrador, could be spent to build this road, but the government opposite refuses to allow it to happen.

Let me tell you what they did allow to happen, Mr. Speaker. They allowed the expenditure of putting a ferry in Lewisporte for the people of Lewisporte and the people of Central Newfoundland to use to access Labrador as an optional route at a cost of $1.7 million to the people of Labrador. That money will come out of the Labrador Fund. We confirmed last evening that actually $680,000 will come out of that fund this year, just to run the terminal in Lewisporte and employ a number of people at dockside.

Mr. Speaker, that is a complete and utter injustice that is being done to the people in Williams Harbour and to the people in my district. These people deserve to have a highway connection. The money is in the Labrador Fund to do indeed just this, Mr. Speaker, to connect communities in isolated regions of Labrador to a highway connection. There is absolutely no reason to delay this construction, to cancel it or defer it. It can be built this year. It is a one-season construction project. The money is in the fund, and right now the custodian of the fund, the minister for Labrador, the Minister of Transportation, and the Member for Lake Melville, the Parliamentary Secretary, as custodians, are abusing the rights of this fund by taking the money to put it in Lewisporte and not build a road in the community of Williams Harbour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to clue up my comments by saying to the Minister of Transportation and Works, and the Minister for Labrador Affairs, I want to invite them to come to Williams Harbour, Mr. Speaker, to visit this community and see the importance of having a road connection just eighteen kilometres from a main highway into this community that, right now, is completely isolated, that depends upon the services of other nearby towns. I want to invite the two hon. ministers to go and visit that community, see how the money from the Labrador Fund could be invested to the benefit of this community and to the benefit of Labrador. All it means is just a decision by that government to make it happen, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition from the residents of a community in my district. Again, I have read the prayer of this petition often in the House. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the size of the petition is getting bigger every day and petitions keep coming in.

Mr. Speaker, the parents of the students, in particular of St. Joseph's in Carbonear, are very upset. They are not certain what the future holds for their students in September. The students, themselves, are faced with the possibility of being bused to Harbour Graced to a school that is not ready for them, being asked to go to another school within Carbonear, Davis Elementary, and that in itself is of the same age as the school that they are being moved from. The school is not ready. There have been no renovations done. There have been no tender calls done.

Mr. Speaker, the whole process is flawed. How can anyone, how can any school board, make a conscious decision to close the school without any preparations done to make life easier and pave the way for a smooth transition? It is unheard of, in this day and age, in 2004, for a group of people to meet - and that group of people is the Avalon West School Board. They closed St. Joseph's Intermediate School in Carbonear and they have reconfigured St. Francis in Harbour Grace to include Grades 6 to 9 in the area.

Now, the school board keep saying that they have gone through an extensive consultation process; but, let me tell you, I attended some of those meetings and I was part of what was perceived to be a consultation process. I do not know who this board consulted with. There was no consultation done with the parents, there was none done with the students, so I do not know who it was done with. It was done in isolation. A decision was made, pure, plain and simple, to close St. Joseph's just for the sake of trying to save some money. Now, the fact of the matter is, there is not going to be any money saved. If the school at Davis Elementary have money spent on it to put a piece on, as the old school board keeps saying, well then that in itself is not going to save any money. How can you say one school, the same age as the other school, is a suitable school? Air quality is not there; fire regulations are not in compliance; classrooms are without windows. You have to climb over desks to get from - the inside student has to climb over the desk of the outside student to get into their seats. It does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, something has to be done. I keep asking, and I will continue to ask as long as I am here: Why can't the new school board, the jumbo, the super school board that is in place, look at the situation, review it again, and at least give the parents and the students, of all those schools there, another year of breathing space until we can find a suitable solution which will be suitable to all the people in the area?

The minister yesterday - I noticed he was on T.V. last night and he visited Leary's Brook here in the city, and I have extended the invitation to him -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I ask the minster, again, if he would take the time to come out and accompany me on a visit to the three schools, look at the conditions firsthand, while school is in session? Not after school closes, but just to see the condition of the school, and see that - you know, the people of the area - Mr. Speaker, these people are not making up something here to cause problems. They are seriously presenting this petition to me, on their behalf, to bring here to the House of Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to bring this subject up as long as the petitions keep coming in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I want to ask leave to move first reading of the following bills simply because this was an agreement that we had in order to be able to get the bills tabled today and into every members' hands so that there would be an appropriate amount of time. This was the discussion I had with the Opposition House Leader yesterday, and in particular now today, the Acting Opposition House Leader, the Member for Port de Grave.

With that, I move first reading of Bill 25, The Professional Fish Harvesters Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 25)

It is the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act," carried. (Bill 25)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time, when shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

I move first reading of Bill 26, The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Amendment Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 26.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," carried. (Bill 26)

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27, the Provincial Offences Amendment Act, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 27.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act," carried. (Bill 27)

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

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 27.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time. Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 30, the Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, the Insurance Companies Amendment Act, and the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And the Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance, Bill 30.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And the Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance," carried. (Bill 30)

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

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance, Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

I move that Bill 31, the Schools Act amendment, 1997, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

It is the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Concurrence Debate for the social sector do now proceed, including: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Department of Justice, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Social Services Committee Concurrence Debate would now begin.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The debate may now proceed.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, and Acting Opposition House Leader.

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

First of all, I want to say that it was a pleasure to be able to take part in the Social Services Committee, the Estimates Committee meetings, and to say to the following hon. members who served on that committee, it was an enjoyable experience and a learning experience for me, under the Chairmanship of the Member for Trinity North, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and to say to the ministers and all the staff from the five departments that were under this Committee - the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Status of Women, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and the Department of Justice - I must say that I believe, and I honestly and sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the questions and the responses were very favourable and the co-operation that we received back and forth was something commendable.

Mr. Speaker, during those Committee meetings I guess there were many questions that came up, and I am going to touch on some of them that came forward through the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, for which I was the critic.

Mr. Speaker, all too often we ask questions and issues are put forward and we try to get a further response and clarification, and one of the issues that I want to bring up today is with regard to the closure of the twenty HRE offices throughout our Province, and having major concern about really no comprehensive cost-analysis being done on the closure of those offices, because I understand from the minister, when the question came forward, in particular one office, the one in Burgeo, we know that there was an estimated amount of approximately $2 million that would be the savings for the closure of those offices, but there was really no breakdown on what it was for each of the particular offices in question.

Now, it is one thing to close the offices, whether it is for the sake of saving money - I know some of the comments were made that we know that the transportation systems are better today than they were back in the 1960s, and we have better technology, and all of that is correct. All I hope is that the system that is in place will fare out for the people of this Province, but I do have some concerns with regard to the services. I know they are going to receive the same benefits, that is always there, but the services and the magnitude of service that they are used to having now - maybe there are a lot of areas in the Province that never, ever had the service that those twenty offices had, but I have concerns about the inconvenience that will be put forward to many of those clients.

I just want to touch, for a moment, on the one in Burgeo, where not only the clients in Burgeo and all along that coast have to travel to Burgeo by boat, and now, once they get there, they have to travel from Burgeo all the way to Stephenville if they have to go into the office. I know, and I will touch on this a little later on, that this new technology may have eliminated a lot of the concerns that I may be feeling today, and I hope that I can, in due time, be able to say, I told you so and everything is going to work out fine.

Mr. Speaker, I have had numerous calls from all over this Island, people calling on the Burin Peninsula with regard to the office that will be closing in Bay L'Argent. They have major concerns. Not only do they feel that the service will not be provided as it is today for their own residents there, but the impact that it will have on that area where people used to come into Bay L'Argent, more or less, I guess, the decline of the economy in that particular area due to an office being there and the inconvenience to the clients as well as to the staff having to move on.

I am sure we all heard the concerns of the Mayor of Fogo when he mentioned the impact, and I stand to be corrected but I believe he said that his area might lose out in the vicinity of $200,000. Now, I know the minister has a greater scope to look at than the concerns of little local areas, even though that is the main objective of this government to see that things are, I guess, improved on in rural Newfoundland, but I cannot put it to one side when you hear concerns from people like this, even though, like I said, the minister has a job to do, to provide the best service and in the most cost-effective way.

I also have to go to the office in Bay Roberts. Even though the office in Bay Roberts is not all that far, having to move the people in that area - they would now have to travel to Carbonear, which is a fairly close proximity to each other. Mr. Speaker, there are many people - maybe a lot of us do not realize this but there are many people who do not have the opportunity, do not have a vehicle to travel to Carbonear at the present time, whereas they could get someone to give them a ride to Bay Roberts, because many services that are provided in those HRE offices have to be done face-to-face with the people and not over a telephone.

Mr. Speaker, going into the telephone technology end of it - that is all wonderful and I hope this system is going to work, but I have some concerns. I think the minister was questioned by one of the news media: What about the person who does not have a telephone themselves? More or less: Well, you can probably go to your neighbours house or use a pay phone. Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns about that, for many reasons. People who have to apply for assistance, whether it is the regular income support benefits, whether it is a drug card they are looking for, whether it is special transportation within the Province or outside the Province. There are many needs which come out that those people have to have concerns about. They believe and they honestly think - like I said, maybe they will be proven wrong as well, that this is all going to work out.

By using the telephone, Mr. Speaker - and I will just touch on the part about applying for regular assistance. There is an application, and in the application when you are applying for assistance, I think there are fifty-plus questions, straightforward questions, but some of them have two and three parts to them. In total, I estimated that there are approximately between 100 and 120 questions to be answered. To me - and I have to put myself in their shoes. If I was the one on the other end of that phone - I did not have my own telephone - and I could not go into the office, in the confinement of an office to sit down with a social worker to make out the application and provide whatever information possible, and I had to go to my neighbour's house, or worse again, go to a pay phone somewhere - many communities in this Province, they may have pay phones but they are in facilities that could be closed most of the time. But even to go into a neighbour's house, or even into your own family, those people have concerns about people knowing their business.

I think governments of the past saw this when it came to the point where they thought that the confidentiality of people being in receipt of assistance - when they send money for their rental accommodations they send it directly to the client now rather than sending it to the landlord. In some instances that has to change because some people cannot look after that system. But, to me, now here we are saying that it is fine to go into someone's house to complete their application over the phone or over a payphone and believe that confidentiality is not going to be a major factor, because, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is.

There are many incidents where people have to go into the office. I have constituents who call me from time to time who, for whatever reason, have fallen behind with their light bill. They are unable to pay and they get their cut-off notice from Newfoundland Power. They have to go into an HRE office, for the simple reason because they have to sign off. The clients are not going to pay for their bill but they do have to sign off and say: I am prepared that you would take a portion out of my cheque each month to send to Light and Power. Mr. Speaker, that, to me, cannot be done over a pay phone or over any type of phone. Maybe if they had the form they could fax it in but many people in this Province do not have access to a fax machine. So, I think that is one incident where people will have to take a serious look. I mean, it is fine, like I said earlier, for the people in my immediate area to travel to Carbonear, which is not all that great a distance, but you have people who have to travel quite a distance.

I know the office - I guess I made an error on this, and the minister corrected me during the Estimates. I said the office in Placentia was closed. That was incorrect, and I apologize for that. I do know that people in the St. Mary's Bay area, for what reasons I have not found out yet, but they do travel to Bay Roberts for some services. I mean, that is quite a distance. I do not know if that is one of them, where they have to come to sign off on whether they have their money taken out to help pay their light bill.

Mr. Speaker, other incidents that arise, and I have people calling me on a fairly regular basis, and that is they are waiting for their EI to come through and it is going to be delayed for whatever reasons. There might be an investigation into their claim and they have to go to that office for assistance while they are waiting for their EI to come through. They have to go in and sign because this money will be reimbursed from the HRDC office back to HRE when that particular time comes. That cannot be done just by a telephone call. They have to go in and go face to face with the people who are doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I had calls from people who were either in hospital and, in particular, the Waterford Hospital, people who have been released from other institutions - which I will not name here in this hon. Chamber. When they are released from this hospital or other institutions, they have to go directly - they are probably single individuals - to an HRE office to seek assistance. It is very difficult for them to be able to do this over a telephone. Number one, lots of times it might be in an office that they are not familiar with. It could be someone from my area who has been released in St. John's and are going to stay in some particular home here in St. John's, and they have to go in and see this particular worker. It just cannot be done.

Another policy, I understand - and I do not know how this will work out for those people when they have to travel long distances, because my understanding is that an actual worker has to be at the office at any particular time, even through their lunch break. You take it, if it is so secure that they have to be there for people when they come in, what is going to happen when they have to travel those long distances? If they are in close proximity to the office, I can see that, but to do it over - if they must be there face to face with them, I do not know how this can be corrected and taken care of by using the telephone and other communication systems.

Mr. Speaker, I also understand and I have major concerns with the upheaval of the people who work in those offices because some of them - I know there are not that many. I believe the number is twenty-some-odd through the HRE offices, who will actually receive their layoffs. That is throughout the full twenty. Many people have to move to different areas. I guess that is not the major concern of government because a lot of people have to travel to different areas to seek employment and to take part in their daily jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, some of those people, and I know for a fact - I have major concerns: What else is in the plans? Because I know the people - I think there are twelve. One of those are getting laid off now.

There are twelve in the Bay Roberts office who are going to be moving to Carbonear. That is a problem in itself, but it is not the major issue. I do not know if that is the end of the line or not, because I have it confirmed again that those people are going to be placed - two workers in the one office. It has also been told to me that they will be using the board room. The space is not there. There are no plans to renovate or extend that office. I also had a phone call today that there is just one washroom there. It is going to be used for male and female. Those people are not used to that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it is right and proper to make those moves, to close those offices, without having first consulted with those people. They knew about it, to some degree, but really they did not know anything was happening until they got their notices that morning that they were moving.

The other thing I heard today, and I have to confirm this, but the sources I heard it from are always fairly accurate. They thought that their move was going to be September of this year. I have been advised today that the staff at the Bay Roberts office have been told they are moving next week. I do not know why the rush is on now to get this over with. I guess the department is trying to make those moves as quickly as possible and see where it goes from there, but there is a lot of upheaval within the staff themselves, as well as what is happening to the clients.

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that surfaced when I was talking to some of those people and it is what is called the review cycle. Apparently, it is a form that is sent out to the clients to get more information, and they have to send this back to the office in order for them to get their cheque. It is possible that this could be lost in the mail. They have difficulty with it now, and I have concerns with it because, with the system that we are going into now, where there is no office close by - before, they could drop in, they could sign the forms and possibly be issued their cheque at that same time. Mr. Speaker, once this system sets in, it is going to be more difficult for those people when they have to get information into the office, because they are used to going to those offices and now that is going to be a problem because it is going to happen through the mail system.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things I failed to touch on when I referenced the filling out of the application for benefits was, it is fine to fill it out over the phone, whether it is in the confines of your own home, or your neighbour, or on a pay phone, but you have to mail it into the office anyway. They fill out the form, the application, they send it back to the client and they have to sign it. In lots of cases, maybe the information that they need to attach to this application is not just straightforward. There are lots of things - birth certificates, other income support or whatever they received in the previous sixty days - and all of that has to be included and verified - possibly their bank accounts. That all has to be sent in. So, if they mail this out to somebody it could take, who knows, two, three, four or five days, and mail it back again and say: I am sorry, I cannot complete your application because all the information is not attached. So here we go back in the mail system again. Whereas now - and I know there are probably people around this Province who have to do this, but why make the situation worse than it already is, when people can just get a run into an office, drive into the office, provide the information, and they would receive their cheque; because I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, when those people have to go there looking for a cheque, a lot of them really do not want to be going into the buildings but they know when they go there that they are going to get the service they need from the wonderful staff who work in those offices. There is no problem with that issue. Those people have a concern for people, and they always will, and I believe today they still have a concern for people and they are concerned about what is happening, that they will not be able to provide the type of service that they have been able to do in the past.

Mr. Speaker, many times the elderly people have to go into those offices. I know a lot of the work that is being done - and you have to tie the two departments together because there was a break there a couple of years ago. A lot of those people have to go to Health and Community Services as well. I just want to explain for the purpose of this House - and the minister did it fairly well during the Estimates, and I know I questioned her on it one time - a lot of people still call them social workers, the people who have to go to the HRE offices. In their mind they believe - because a lot of those people still think they are going to get social assistance, and the worker they are dealing with is a social worker. They do not distinguish between one and the other, and they have a major problem with that. I know the minister said one time that there were no social workers within her department, and that is correct, but those people have a mindset where they are going, the type of people they are going to be dealing with and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I brought up in the Estimates - and I know the minister tried to clarify this for me - where I had my information from this same Budget Details and Statistics we talk about every day in the House for 2004-2005, the comment that was sent out to us was, "Funding provided to hire three additional accounts receivable collectors to collect outstanding balances owed by prior income support clients. These collectors are based in St. John's but provide services Province-wide."

I mentioned this to the minister, and no doubt later on she will be standing to clarify some of those issues. That is where I got it from. It is not that I just tried to say they were from St. John's. It was based on the facts that were given to us, and that is why I made the statements in the public as well as here at the Estimates Committee meetings, because it was information that was provided to us through this document.

Mr. Speaker, I know many of my colleagues are going to stand and speak in reference to the other departments that are tied to this particular Social Services Committee, but I have to say in closing that the concerns that I have, much of the information that has to be provided through the HRE offices is very personal and confidential information, and the people are very happy with the service that they have. I know for a fact that the people in my area, they are very upset that they are losing the office in our town. I guess we soon will not have any government offices left in that particular district. We have Health and Community Services there, and I know there is a review ongoing so I hoping and praying that one will hang on in Bay Roberts. I understand where government is coming from. They are trying to consolidate and all this, but I ask them, I challenge them, to keep in mind the people. They are the greatest resource we have, the people out there, and the services that they are looking for - I honestly believe, Mr. Speaker, that when a service is provided to the people, they can go in and speak to somebody face to face, it is far better than going through a telephone system or other technology. We all know full well, we all have our phone systems, we all have our message managers, and they are fine when we are not available, but it is very discouraging when you get people who are in need, whether they are looking for just regular assistance, whether they are looking for rental accommodations, whether they are looking for a medical card, whether they need transportation within the Province or outside the Province - and many people have to travel outside the Province - Mr. Speaker, I just ask that they would reconsider this. I know the decision has been made.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. Before you say, your time is up, I thank you for the time and I look forward to speaking to this issue again.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a few moments to make a few comments with respect to the Estimates Committee as we dealt with the social programs. As Chair of that Committee, I want to thank all people who participated, each of the ministers who attended with their staff, together with the members of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we dealt with the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, together with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing which comes under the Department of Human Resources, also Justice, Education, and Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, these programs, if you look at this year's Budget, in fact, look at most year's Budgets and look at where the bulk of government spending will go, the bulk of government spending goes into these particular programs. These are the program areas, Mr. Speaker, that provide the social safety nets to the people of this Province.

As each of the ministers responded to questions from members of the committee, as their staff provided a profile and some insight into the programs and services that they deliver, it was very obvious, Mr. Speaker, and I think we all recognized as we went through that exercise, that it was a tremendous learning experience for all of us who are on the committee. I think we recognized, through that process, the tremendous challenges these ministers have in working with their staff in providing the much needed services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was also very pleasing, Mr. Speaker, to see some of the new initiatives, some of the real nice initiatives, this government is undertaking. The ministers were able to give us a fairly good indication of how their programs and services will roll out in the coming year, which will form the basis, in some cases, for the redevelopment of some of these programs, obviously leading to a much more effective and a more efficient delivery of programs and services in the future.

I just want to highlight a couple. I am sure the ministers will talk about them with respect to their particular areas, but I want to talk about them with respect to some of the insights we gained.

I was extremely pleased as we spoke with the Minister of Justice about some of the new policing initiatives. No doubt the minister will talk about the expansion of the RNC and the new officers who are going to be trained over the next three years, fifteen new officers each year for the next three years. Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant points in that announcement by the minister - and it was really interesting listening to him talk about it in the committee stage - was a change in the training. This is a fundamental shift, Mr. Speaker. With this announcement, in future RNC officers will be trained right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They will be trained in Memorial University.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that speaks well for a couple of things. It speaks well for the university and how it has grown and developed and matured and become an institution that is able to respond to the many training needs of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as a whole. Also, I think, Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the confidence that this government has in Memorial and speaks to the confidence that this government has in their ability to deliver diverse programs to the many demands of the people in this Province. It also, I think, adds to the RNC itself. It provides an opportunity for them to become integrated with the educational institution that will provide their training programs well into the future. I think that becomes extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

It was very interesting listening to the Minister of Justice talk about that particular new initiative, and he talked about it with some excitement. He also talked about some of the unique challenges and how he is prepared to respond to those challenges for policing in Labrador. These are just a couple of things that stood out in the area of justice, I say, Mr. Speaker.

We look at education. The Minister of Education gave us a tremendous insight into how he is proposing to reform the education system in this Province to reflect the changes that are occurring. He talked about the declining enrolments that exist in the Province in the K-12 system. He talked about the changing role for our post-secondary education systems and how he, and his department, would like to get a real good sense of what the post-secondary education system should look like in this Province. That is why he indicated that he has announced a study. A White Paper will be developed and some consultation will occur in the coming year to look at, to gain some insight, and to solicit some input from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as to how they see the education system, or the post-secondary education system, in this Province being able to be structured and to be able to respond to the changing demands of society. It was really insightful, listening to him share with us some of the thoughts he had about the future of not only the K-12 system, which is ever-changing with the declining enrolment. He talked about, with some excitement, the anticipation of the benefits that will be had in this Province with respect to the restructuring of the school boards and how he was very sensitive.

Mr. Speaker, he spent some time talking about this because the minister was extremely sensitive about having an expensive system that was not necessarily responding to the changing demands of students, but also he was very sensitive to the fact that as we bring about change we need to make sure that the change has a positive impact in the classroom. That is what the education system should be about, what is taking place in the classroom.

We were very pleased, as a Committee, Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister talk about his sensitively to what was happening in the classroom. More importantly, we had a real good insight into the vision he has for the future. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest to the members of this House, if the minister is able to deliver on the vision that he shared with us that night, I think when we look back four years from now when this party goes to the polls in the fall of 2007, I think the minister will stand very proudly and talk about the accomplishments this government has had in the reform of education because it will make major improvements in the accomplishments of the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just to move on to one of the other departments that is going through some real change, and that is the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the member just spoke a moment ago, the Member for Port de Grave, about some of the reductions in offices, some of the layoffs and changes of staffing that occurred. We have heard him and we heard the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile talk about cost-benefit analysis of closing and moving offices. What stood out, I say, Mr. Speaker, in the Estimates, as we listened to the minister talk about the changes that she envisaged in her department and some new directions, it was very obvious that she has recognized that there is a change in the caseload. She has recognized that there is a shift in the workload of the staff within her department. She has recognized that there have been changes in the population of various communities. There has been a shift in the number of people who have been added to the caseloads. There has been some - I will not use the word settling, but she has recognized that some of the people who are on the caseload today are people who are long-term recipients and, basically, their contact with the department is now by virtue of having their income submitted to them on a monthly basis.

What she has done, Mr. Speaker, is tried to make sure that the people who are out in the field, providing services, are providing services directly to the clients who they are there to serve, which are those who need frequent contact with her department. With the introduction of some new technologies that she talked about, she is able to - and I think very skillfully - put together a plan of action that gets us the best use of the resources that she has available to her and her department but, at the same time, is responsive to the needs of the constituents and the clients she has in her department. So, it was extremely beneficial for us, as a Committee, Mr. Speaker, to have her share, not just to talk about the dollars and cents in her budget, but to talk about how she is going to be delivering programs, and the changes that have occurred in her area in recent years that have resulted in this change that we have seen now.

We look at some of the other departments that we looked at, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and that was an interesting department, Mr. Speaker, because one of the biggest challenges identified by the current minister in coming into his portfolio was much of the municipal infrastructure and much of the funding laid out for municipal infrastructure in this Province for the coming years, comes about as a result of multi-year funding programs that were announced in previous years but, more importantly, not only were the programs announced but all of the funding was committed. So, the minister finds himself in a precarious situation today where the bulk of the money that will be flowing into his department this year, and maybe even next year, has already been committed by a previous Administration, and that requires him now to make some significant decisions about how he is going to be able to manage the funds that he has but also respond to new and emerging demands that we have in this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, that was interesting. It was kind of a shift because he was a minister who then inherited a department, or moved into a department, where basically, to some extent, his hands are tied in terms of the commitment he can make to the expansion of future and much-needed municipal infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to talk with the Minister of Health and Community Services about some of the new initiatives announced in the Budget with respect to her department. Similar to education, the health system also is in need of major reform. One of the fastest growing expenditure categories of not only this government but every provincial government in this entire country is in the area of health services. It is an area that has many facets and this government has, as she shared with us, plans to look at a number - take it from four key areas, I think, is how she described it. She wants to look at it from a perspective of looking at how the governance looks, how we manage the system. Right now there is a structure of institution boards and a structure of community health boards around the Province. She has indicated that government is now going through a process of looking at how that should be structured into the future. She talks about it in terms of how management is structured and how governance bodies are structured.

The other approach that is being considered, Mr. Speaker, as she shared with us, is how people access service. How should people access their services? Obviously, if we are looking to have an X-ray done or to see a family physician, we should not expect to drive a tremendous distance to be able to access that kind of service. That should be closest to the people as possible. On the other hand, if we are having major cardiac service then we obviously should not expect that on our doorstep. So, we need to start looking at how we deliver services and where we deliver them. Obviously, those services which require people to access them frequently need to be close to home. I think that is important, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other things that she talked about being on the horizon for the coming year was looking at how we, in fact, use the skills of our well trained health professionals. Making sure, for example, that our nurses are practicing to the full scope of their training; our LPNs are practicing to the full scope of their training. We have health professionals working together in teams around the Province, particularly in new primary care centres throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fourth focus of the agenda for the coming year, Mr. Speaker, is talking about best practices. Making sure that the resources that are invested in health and community services in this Province, we are getting the best value for our money. We do that in a couple of ways, but one that she highlighted was ensuring that what we are doing in this Province today reflects the best practices that are available. In other words, we want to become a collection of centres of excellence. What we are doing out in Grand Falls, or what we are doing in Clarenville, or what we are doing in Trinity in a primary care clinic, we are making sure that in those facilities the people who are delivering those services are doing it leading edge, doing it providing the best level of service to the residents that they provide services to, and that they are in fact complying with good, sound, safe practices and ensure they are providing quality care.

These are just a few, Mr. Speaker. I have kind of given you an overview of some of the - not an all encompassing commentary, but just highlights of some of the things we talked about with each of those - as we went through as a committee, as we went through a discussion - ministers and their staff who talked about the services and programs that they provide.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude, but as I do, I once again want to thank each of the ministers and their staff for coming to those meetings so well prepared, and were able to provide such a tremendous insight to all of us in response to our questions. So as we were very comfortable when we concluded those sessions of being able to pass, without any amendments, the budgets that they have submitted to this House for approval.

I thank them once again, and once again thank the members of my caucus colleagues here, members on the opposite side who participated with me in this Committee process and contributed so much to the debate on the Budget and to get out for some discussion on some really significant issues that are affecting the social programs for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

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

I am pleased to stand today to respond to the Social Services Committee. I think I would like to zero in on a couple of departments that really affect my district in particular.

First, I would like to talk about the Department of Education. Being a former Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, that department is really special to me. That department does not exist now, but I want to talk about really what happened recently, and that was the consolidation of the school boards. I do not know if government will use that method again in the future. I know their rationale was to save money, but I have not heard - right up until today - what the criteria was for the consolidation of school boards, particularly as it relates to Central Newfoundland.

We all know that the current school boards, prior to now - I guess still now, because they are not really moved into one yet - looked after an area right from Baie Verte to Carmanville and had a total of seventy schools that they were responsible for. Forty-five of those schools were in my particular board and part of the district that I represent. I never did see, first or last - and I do not think anybody else saw - what criteria was used in making a decision to transfer the headquarters for the school board to Gander. This is not a fight about communities. It is not a fight about two different members. It is none of those reasons. What I would like to say here today is, what rationale was used? Can government defend their argument? I have raised these questions in the House before. I did not get any answers.

In fact, it was interesting when NTV did a clip on this particular issue in Central Newfoundland. They compared just the physical buildings. They looked at the actual building that is located in the district for the Member for Windsor-Springdale. It is a relatively brand new school; a school that was abandoned during school reform. It was not necessary. It is a one-level school set on a huge piece of property. It is directly adjacent to the YMCA, a brand new building in Grand Falls-Windsor. It is a brick building. In fact, during school reform, when the office was no longer required in the former Town of Grand Falls, the school was taken over by the school board. It is a brick building with all the modern conveniences. In fact, the school board had spent $250,000 on renovating that particular school board. It was in the heart of the district. Teachers had grown accustomed to actually coming to that school board. They were there for professional development. They were there for conferences, in-session services. Whatever needed to be done, they used this particular facility. There was room in this facility to accommodate both school boards.

We could see from the television clip that had been done, that the school board in Gander, the current school board in Gander, is not in the same condition as the one in Grand Falls-Windsor, nor is it one level, which would make it accessible to disabled persons. None of this criteria was used. It did not matter, the fact that our school board was already responsible for forty-five schools out of the seventy. Our school board was directly in the heart of the entire district. Our school board office was wired for computers, for computer training, and handled most of the students throughout the whole two districts combined. None of these things mattered. Not one of those things mattered. In fact, I do not even think - and if the Minister of Education can prove me wrong. If he can show me a terms of reference that was developed so both communities would have the opportunity to present their case and the one that presented the best case, the most logical case and the one that could prove they could accommodate this move and would cost the government the least amount of money and it would serve the people the best, would actually be the successful community in obtaining the headquarters for the Consolidated School Boards. Not once did the Minister of Education provide any of that information. Not once did he provide any of that information. He tried to defend his argument but I do not think there is one person out there who would agree with the argument that he is making because the argument has no basis whatsoever.

Now, I hope that same rationale will not be used in the most current thing that is on the go between Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander, because it should never come to that, that communities have to pit one against the other, fight for survival, and fight not to lose their economy, all because government makes a decision based on absolutely no facts or no rationale. Why should the Chamber of Commerce have to spend money? Why should they have to spend money putting an ad like this in every paper in the Province, trying to make a business case as to why the headquarters for the two health care boards, one in Grand Falls-Windsor and one in Gander? Why should they have to take out ads and try to make a business case when there is no criteria developed by government? I asked that question yesterday to the Minister of Health and Community Services. I asked her if she had developed a criteria for location of the new headquarters.

I would like to call for a quorum at this time.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

A quorum is called. I ask that the House be counted.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will resume my response to the Social Services Committee again. Just a slight interruption. The government did not have their required numbers in the House, for viewers out there who may be wondering what is going on. I think now, out of the thirty-four members that they have, they have enough in the House and we will start again.

I was saying that it is almost incomprehensible to imagine that the amalgamation of two boards in Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander is going to take place shortly and absolutely no -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: What is going on with the House Leader, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: If you would like to say something to this House, I suggest you stand on your feet, Mr. House Leader. I have the floor right now.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had a few interruptions but I am not distracted by that.

I want to talk about health care, and how important it is to the people of this Province. It is clear that it is not so important to the government of the day. What I am talking about now is the potential of this new government for health care reform as they have indicated in their Budget. They said they were going to take eighteen months to redesign health care in our Province.

Now, one of the casualties of designing health care in our Province will be a reduction in services for a good many places in our Province, particularly rural communities. I am concerned with the consolidation that is about to take place between the health care boards, both in Grand Falls-Windsor and also in Gander. As I said before, I do not know why the Chamber of Commerce should have to spend their money, and the community of Gander and the community of Grand Falls-Windsor be pitted one against the other in trying to attract the headquarters for the Central Health Care Board. We all know that the activities of the administrative wing of operating those boards, their activities are 99 per cent road based. They do not need an airport. They are going to be behind the scenes making sure that all facilities are run properly. That is what they are going to be doing.

In fact, when you look at the fact that the area that is going to be covered by the two boards is from Baie Verte to Eastport - Baie Verte on the west, Eastport on the east - that is quite a distance. Who will be in the centre of that distance? Grand Falls-Windsor. It is going to serve a population of approximately 100,000 people. Sixty thousand of those are located in the current board for Central West and 85 per cent of all the people throughout the entire two boards will actually only be a one-hour driving distance from Grand Falls-Windsor. These are important factors because, if the government of the day is looking at saving money, all of these factors need to be considered.

You look at the history. If you look at the history of the operation and the fiscal success of Central West Health Care Board, they have had an excellent record. It is widely known within government. I think the Minister of Health and Community Services could attest to that herself. She was the Auditor General of this Province for ten years, and she certainly knew her own self the record of hospital boards throughout this Province.

It can also be said that Central West has a great reputation for maintaining and attracting both physicians and specialists. In fact, they are the ones that had the most success with the med school at MUN. At the medical school at MUN, Central West have been the most successful in attracting doctors and keeping them. It has been considered to be a location of choice - Grand Falls-Windsor - for the lifestyle, and as a result we are able to keep our specialists. I am certain that the Member for Windsor-Springdale would confirm that very fact. He knows that to be true.

There are a lot of factors at play even when you look at the infrastructure itself. The present board of Central West can accommodate the administrative part of putting the two boards together. They are able to do this free of charge for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be no rent to pay and there will be no renovations to pay for. They are asking you to move right in. If you were a government that were trying to save money, and I believe you are, it would only seem logical that you would make that choice.

I would hope that the Minister of Health will take into account what I have said today and what others are saying in the media, and she will develop a set of criteria, a terms of reference, so there will be equal opportunity for both communities to put forward their business proposal. In the interest of fairness, this is what needs to be done.

I would also like to talk about the proposed closure of the mental health unit at #1 Junction Road in Grand Falls-Windsor. I am very concerned about that. The news came out last week. I have gotten calls from patients who use that clinic. They do not know what is going to happen. There has been notice given, that clinic will close September 1. I remember when that clinic was first opened. It was a happy day in Grand Falls-Windsor. We opened up two clinics at the same time, one for the young people and one for the adults. The young people have their mental health unit in the provincial building in Grand Falls-Windsor. The adults have their clinic at #1 Junction Road in Grand Falls-Windsor, which is a separate house where they can go, as adults, and get the clinical help that they need in battling the illnesses that they do have. I was surprised to get telephone calls, confidential telephone calls, from users who are using this clinic. They are really concerned with the fact that it is going to close.

Now, from a business point of view, I even had a telephone call today saying that the real estate firm that has the For Sale sign on the lawn of that house has been given an exclusive listening by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that is generally unheard of. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a policy of being fair, whether it is through the public tender system, whether it is a Request for Proposals or anything of that nature. Generally, they do not give exclusive listings to one real estate firm. I do not know what happened in this case, but I would surely say to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they are listening today, the Department of Health and Community Services, you do not have to wait until the listening expires. You can do that today. You can make it become a multiple listening for any firm that wants to offer this property. On that side of the equation, there are four real estate firms in Grand Falls-Windsor and there is no reason why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should favour one particular firm. It is against all the rules of fairness and should not happen.

Now, getting back to the point of the actual facility itself, I hope it does not close. I hope the sign comes off the lawn. That is what I really want to have happen. Now, I know that there was a shared responsibility between Health and Community Services operating from Gander and also the Central West Health Care Board - they were sharing the salaries of these paid professionals - but I do hope that both boards will come to a reasonable solution, that will consider the importance of this facility to the users themselves.

I know it is all about money. It is all about money, because we know definitely that the service is needed. Where will those people go? Do they have to go back to an institutional type setting to get this kind of help through the hospital system, where many of them have been thriving so well in a private location and away from an institutional setting?

I do hope that the two boards can apply some pressure to the Minister of Health and Community Services and see the value of this important service for the people, not only from Grand Falls-Windsor, because I know that the people who use that clinic for mental health are from all over. It is so very important. It seems like this is a day to talk about health issues.

I could not conclude my speech here today without talking again about the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. I can never say it enough. When I saw that sign come down, it was heart wrenching. The people are still there who need the services, and every day there are more people being added to the list. People who need cancer treatment, they are the survivors, and it is unfair to expect people today to have to endure the indignity of sitting side by side and having chemotherapy treatment. It is not fair, because if they were in another location, in St. John's or Corner Brook, they could receive that treatment in privacy and in an atmosphere that is conducive to healing. When you have treatment being done in a crowded room and very little privacy, no privacy in fact - it is very hard dealing with the disease itself, and then to have to have treatment and not have the right kind of atmosphere, a comfortable atmosphere, where you can bring your family, if necessary. They can assist you, even hold you hand, get you a glass of water, or whatever needs to be done, but having room enough to be able to take in a family member, if you need to do that.

Do you know something? That cancer clinic could have been provided. The financing was in place. The design was ready. The parking lot was reading. Money was already spent in realigning the whole parking lot, so doctors would move further away from the hospital and park somewhere so the actual building could be attached to the existing hospital. There was a great sense of excitement and euphoria from the people in Grand Falls-Windsor, and all of Central Newfoundland, who use that facility. They had hopes that, within a year, they could actually be in that new clinic and receiving treatment in a bright, cheery atmosphere, one with privacy and one that is necessary to the healing method itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time as expired.

MS THISTLE: I wonder could I have thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MS THISTLE: I have been denied leave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised hon. members opposite didn't grant leave. The member was giving such a scintillating speech for the last twenty minutes, I was hoping that she would go on for a little longer.

I want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker. This is the report of the Social Services Committee, probably the most important Estimates Committee that we have, looking after some 72 per cent of the total expenditure of gross current and capital, $3.1 billion, Mr. Speaker, being spent or authorized to be spent by the departments involved, the Department of Education, Health and Community Services, Human Resources, Labour and Employment, Justice, Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, extremely important departments and agencies for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Chair of the Committee, the Member for St. John's North, talk about the vision that his government has in these areas, I almost gagged, Mr. Speaker. I almost gagged, because I know that the people who are served, or want to be served - some of them are not being served, but they want to be served by some of these departments and agencies - do not regard this government as having vision in the areas of social services. Let's just take one example. We will start from the bottom up in the sense of the list.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; this government took 10 per cent of their budget away - 10 per cent of the budget for housing for Newfoundland and Labrador - when we have waiting lists thousands of families long for social housing. This is an example of this government's vision for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A very blurred vision, I would say, a very blurred vision indeed when they take 10 per cent of the budget for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation away. They need that budget to repair existing housing, to provide new social housing for those whose need for housing cannot be met in the private sector because the cost of housing is very expensive in many places of this Province. We have seen extremely high increases in rents in the City of St. John's and area. We know that in other parts of the Province there is a terrific need for any kind of social housing. We have a very great lack of money for repairs. The Housing Corporation officials are always concerned about the fact that they cannot maintain the houses properly. It took the last minister a couple of years to sign an agreement with the Government of Canada on housing that was supposed to solve some of the problems and deal with the issues of homelessness, and we see this government placing almost no emphasis on the need for affordable housing in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not an example of vision in my books, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Education has a budget of some $900 million, Mr Speaker, $891 million. In that budget we do not see any room for the kind of things that we campaigned for in the last provincial election, the kind of things that families need, particularly families who have very little income, and these comprise a very high percentage of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We did not see any money, other than the current allotment, to increase and to provide for a school meal program for each student in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a commitment to maintain the existing support for that very valuable program that ensures that children who go to school have a full belly so that they can learn. If we are going to have the teachers, if we are going to have the buildings, if we are going to have the classrooms, but we do not have the students able to learn because they are hungry, then we are missing the whole point of giving the kids an education to try to improve their lot in life. We have a situation where only about 15 per cent of the students, the schoolchildren in this Province, have access to a school meal program, and that is something that requires not just vision but a commitment to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is lacking from this government. No attack on school fees, which are still being charged in this Province, and we presented a plan last fall, in the election, to eliminate school fees and also eliminate the cost of textbooks.

Another idea, Mr. Speaker, that we put forth in the last election was for a full day Kindergarten. A full day Kindergarten is something that would meet a lot of different needs, Mr. Speaker, in this Province. It would meet the needs of ensuring that a lot of the children who do not at this point have a level playing field when they go to Kindergarten and Grade 1, have an opportunity at the Kindergarten stage to overcome any difficulties that they may have had as a result of a less than satisfactory home circumstance, where they did not have the same kind of stimulation, access to books and programs, that other children have. They would be given an opportunity to enter Grade 1 on a level playing field with other children. That is a program, Mr. Speaker, that would cost a few dollars.

In fact, we had a package of programs that would cost about $30 million. About $30 million, it would have cost, Mr. Speaker, to introduce the program that we had, our program for children, that would have had a universal school lunch program, elimination of school fees, elimination of costs for textbooks, and a full day of Kindergarten. These programs collectively would have cost $30 million. Out of a budget of nearly $900 million for education, this would have represented a very modest increase, Mr. Speaker, and the $30 million could have been found very easily by this government, by imposing and putting into place a fair corporate tax system.

If our corporate taxes in this Province were the same as they are in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we would have an additional $65 million a year, Mr. Speaker. These are figures from an economic study of the taxation system of this Province.

What did we do? We did nothing to ensure that we had a fair tax system when it comes to corporations in this Province. Our sister province next door, Nova Scotia, who I am just comparing it to now, if we were at least where they were, we would have an extra $65 million a year and we could have this program for children. What did they do? They actually increased their corporate taxes, Mr. Speaker. They increased their corporate taxes in their budget, in order to balance their budget, and we did nothing, Mr. Speaker, except tack on a whole bunch of fees and collecting money from individuals for ambulance fees and motor registrations and every conceivable fee that they could imagine to try and raise revenues from everybody, not from the people who are not paying their fair share.

Also in education, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a drop of $2 million in the budget for the College of the North Atlantic. Is that vision? Is that the kind of vision that this government has for public post-secondary education, when that particular college and its predecessor, the public college system, has had a massive budget cut in the last ten years? Since 1993, Mr. Speaker, the public contribution from this Province to the college system has gone down from $87 million to, now, $50 million, a cut of $37 million over ten years, and we still expect students, young people and families, to believe that this government has vision and has a commitment to young people. It is shame, Mr. Speaker, that our young people do not have access to the kind of programs that they want and need in a timely way and for a reasonable fee.

What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that they are driving more and more people to the private college system where they pay extremely high fees for a program that has substantially less recognition, questionable value in the years to come. In fact, we have seen so many of them go bankrupt, I have people contacting me and saying: Look, I went to this particular college and I have a degree or I have a diploma in IT. It is worthless! I owe $20,000 but it is worthless because people say: What is the good of that diploma? That college does not even exist any more. How can we recognize that diploma from a college that does not even exist? It went bankrupt. It went out of business, because that is what they are, Mr. Speaker, they are businesses. They are not institutions of higher learning that the public can have faith in because they are operated by the government on a non-profit basis. That is the lack of vision that this government has when it comes to education.

We see the Minister of Education having, this week, to recognize the folly of cutting out the spending program for school construction by taking away and deferring the school construction. We see an example here in St. John's, the Leary's Brook school, where a school that was built for 375 students now has 500. That is one-third more than it was built for. They have sixteen classrooms in a building that was designed for twelve. They have classrooms with no windows. They have safety issues, Mr. Speaker, and they have a lack of programs because the labs are being used for classrooms and they cannot have the kind of programs that they need.

This, Mr. Speaker, will continue in this September and until this government changes its mind. I hope the minister does change his mind, but if he does change his mind it will not be because of the vision of the government when they brought down this Budget that we are being asked to pass here today. It will not be because of the vision. If he changes his mind, it will be because he has come to his senses, because he and his colleagues in the Cabinet have been told that they cannot get away with this, that the public will not allow them to get away with this particular deferral of necessary expenditure; because, Mr. Speaker, we have gone through a very painful period in our educational system over the last number of years, and this minister and this government is going to extend that pain.

We are just getting used to the idea, Mr. Speaker, of having elected school boards. We have had two elections. The first election was held after a whole series of motions were put on the table by the previous school board, the appointed board, a whole series of motions that were put on the table to close a whole bunch of schools. The new school board got elected and the first thing they had to do was to deal with the closure of schools put on the table by the previous government's squeeze on school construction and attempt to amalgamate schools and eliminate schools.

The second election was held a couple of years ago with a four-year mandate. What have they done before that term even expires? They eliminate them. I have not seen the bill yet but I suspect the legislation that the minister gave notice of today and gave first reading, An Act to Amend the Schools Act, probably says those people who were elected for a four-year term are going to be cut off. They are going to be unelected. They are no longer going to be elected. They are no longer going to be able to represent the people that they serve. Now, we are going to have a school board in one case, the largest board, the Eastern board, that is going to represent 33,000 students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I am wrong. We are going from 33,000 students up to 56,000 students. My mistake. So, 56,000 students from Bonavista to St. Shotts and Burin and all in one school board, and we are going to have an election. How representative is that school board going to be? How much access will parents have to school board decisions, Mr. Speaker, in a system like that? The whole idea of having elected school boards was to have the parents have some say in school policy and school board policy and some access to the board and board decisions. That has just been totally undercut. Totally undercut by the changes that this government is bringing about. They did not even give the system a chance to work. No wonder we have such little respect for democracy in this Province when governments can do the kind of things that this minister proposes to do in the Department of Education.

Other departments that were under consideration were: Justice, Human Resources and Employment, Health and Community Services. I will just talk briefly on one matter under Justice. We are seeing, finally, some changes in staffing for the RNC. I think that is a positive thing. It is an opportunity. I think the Minister of Justice has recognized this, that perhaps it is time for this opportunity to be used to try and change the balance, the gender imbalance that exists in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and an opportunity for an affirmative action program to ensure that we have more women in the police force than we do now. We have a very small percentage; perhaps 10 per cent or less in the RNC. We need more, and the only way that is going to happen is if the Department of Justice insists, of the new recruits, that at least 50 per cent of them are women to reflect the population of our Province and assure that the police force will eventually become totally reflective of the population by having an equal number of men and women. That needs to be done, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty controversial. A lot of people think that is discrimination against men, but that is wrong. What it is, is a necessity to change the existing reality and to ensure that there is equality in our police force. It could easily be argued and demonstrated that up until now it has been discrimination against women which has produced a police force that is now comprised almost entirely of men. That should change, Mr. Speaker.

In the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the minister was praised by the Member for Trinity North for closing down offices and shifting around and responding to the caseload change. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think something very important is being overlooked here. The people who deal with Human Resources and Employment on an on-going basis need to have face-to-face contact. They need to come - as the Member for Cartwright-L-Anse au Clair said last week, they need to understand and know the face of poverty. They do not need to have their backs turned on that, deal with them by telephone or by mail. They need to know that these people need help. They need to understand that someone is there. A human being is there at the end when the time is required and not be required to deal with them in an impersonal way, through telephone to a different community. This is very important, Mr. Speaker, because many things that people who are in receipt of social assistance need, they need to have an opportunity to discuss and have contact with an individual response for that.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many things in these departments, and I know I am coming very close to my twenty minute time limit to speak on this. It is something that could occupy an awful lot more debate in this House, and there will be more debate about these matters. We talk about health care, the primary concern of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as across the country. We need to have a commitment from this government that nothing less than the restoration of what is called the Romanow gap, so that we get 25 per cent of health care costs covered by the Government of Canada. That is what this government has to expect and demand from any party running in the federal election. To say that we are delighted that Mr. Martin will come up with $50 million for two years and another $17 million for the next three on a one shot deal is not an answer. It is not a solution for a generation, as Mr. Martin called it. We have an expectation and a demand that we get back immediately to 25 per cent funding by the Government of Canada. That has been promised by Jack Layton and the New Democrats in this current election, based on a platform released in the last twenty-four hours. This is the kind of commitment that we need to health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, because if we do not get it, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a tax on health care such as we have in Ontario, when the government just introduced a health care premium that there is no way people in this Province can afford, but we do not want to provide the opportunity where this government or any government is considering those kinds of options because the Government of Canada is not ensuring that the fair share of 25 per cent of the minimum of the cost of health care is coming from federal coffers to create a level playing field across the country and to ensure that people in this Province have the same kind of access to health care when they need it, as they do in other provinces.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there have to be advances in drug care which is the fastest rising part of health care costs, and access to home care on a more equitable basis in this Province. These are things that have to start taking place, Mr. Speaker. We need leadership and vision from this government, and not the kind of slashing and burning that we have seen. We need to be bold enough to tax the corporations, Mr. Speaker, the same way they are, with the same kind of energy and initiative that they have taken in laying on the fees on ordinary people, Mr. Speaker. Be bold enough to do that, Mr. Speaker, and you might get some respect from ordinary people. That is what my challenge is to this government, Mr. Speaker, to show that kind of leadership and show that kind of vision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: That this House concur with the report of the Social Services Committee.

All those in favour, ‘aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion carried.

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

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

I move that the House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills that are at Committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider certain bills that are at the Committee stage.

It is the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 2, Committee stage of Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

CHAIR: A bill, "An Act to Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill 22)

Shall clause 1 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Shall I report clauses 1 to 7 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 7 carried without amendment.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 22 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 3, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 21)

CHAIR: Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act."

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 8.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on the act. It was my understanding that it was drafted by my colleague, the Member for Carbonear, when he was minister last year. I think it is a good act. There is a question that I would like to ask the minister on it. I think what it says is that this would allow - and correct me if I am wrong - conservation enforcement officers to ticket or to seize a recreational vehicle, such as a quad, if it is being driven by kids who are under the age of sixteen, or if they are driving without helmets and things like that. Is that correct, Madam Minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Yes, it is in the Highway Traffic Act for conservation officers to stop vehicles on the highway. I guess the conservation officer is defined in the act as enforcement officer. I think that is what you are asking, is it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: I guess the question is - I will give you an example - if a child of eleven years old or six years old is driving a Quad on a dirt road or on a railroad track, would he be able to seize the vehicle or give that individual a ticket?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will speak to it because, while it was drafted by the Department of Government Services, the conservation officers who are noted in the bill actually report to the Department of Natural Resources. The amendments to this act - officials from both departments were working on these amendments, as the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace would know, as a former minister. The empowerment from the conservation officers' point of view, it is our understanding it would give them that authority, which is a direct answer to the question asked by the member.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: I think, Mr. Chairman, that is certainly a move in the right direction.

I had occasion this weekend to be in the Town of Terra Nova, which is nineteen kilometers from the Trans-Canada Highway. For the most part it is just summer homes used by vacationers, even though there are ten or twelve families, or maybe fewer than that, who remain in the community. It is unbelievable what I witnessed there, to see kids as young as six years old driving on Quads through the main town, along the tracks and everything else, with no license and no helmet.

In fact, when I was going in the road - and it is a dirt road and it is quite dusty - there was an RCMP vehicle in front of me. There were two Quads coming towards us. He stopped his car, pulled the car across the road, and there was one young fellow on one of the vehicles, I guess, who was no more than eight years old and he spun the vehicle around in the middle of the road and took off out in the woods. The RCMP didn't catch him, but he did manage to stop three teenage girls. Maybe they weren't even teenage girls. They looked to be anywhere from thirteen to ten years old, driving on one particular vehicle. He was successful in stopping them. Three kids, thirteen and under, driving a vehicle with no helmets on the main road through the town, it is absolutely ridiculous.

I had occasion, a couple of weeks, to listen to an interview with one of the doctors at the Health Sciences Complex, and he said it is astronomical the number of children who are being taken to the Janeway, practically on a daily basis, with injuries that are suffered from driving these vehicles. One of the comments that he made was that, in speaking to the parents of one of these children, he said, would you allow you child to drive your car or your truck, and they laughed at them. Then he said: But you permit him to drive your Quad which is 700 or 800 pounds and just as dangerous, probably more dangerous, than it would be for that child to be driving a car. He would have more protection in a car than he would have on a Quad.

I am glad to see, especially in remote areas like the Town of Terra Nova and the environment around that, that at least if there is a conservation officer in the area at a particular time, day or night, he may be able to do something to prohibit these children from not only putting their own lives in danger, but also endangering the lives of anyone else who might be in the area.

I think, in that light, this is a good bill, and I would vote for that for sure.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad the Member for Twillingate & Fogo raised this point, about the use of all-terrain vehicles, particularly by children and young people in our communities and throughout the Province. I raised the same matter the other night when were at second reading, on Tuesday evening, here in the House. Again, I was happy to see that there will be more people, fisheries officers, conservation officers, and others, given the status of enforcement officers under the Highway Traffic Act, particularly to look after this problem.

I did make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and I do not know if the minister has had time to consider it or consult with the officials on that. This could be a very timely opportunity, between now and the close of school in the third week of June - you know, less than a month from now the schools will all close - this might be an excellent opportunity for the minister to get some brochures into the hands of school children and home to their parents, presumably, to ensure that they are aware, and that parents are aware, of the rules, of the law, of who is allowed to drive these vehicles, what the law is, and to ensure that they know that there are consequences for violating these rules, not only in terms of personal safety and the possibility of injury and death if these rules are not followed, but also that they could have these vehicles taken by enforcement officers and have significant fines levied for violation of these rules. I think it is very important heading into the summer season.

We all experienced it last May 24 weekend. Anybody in this House, who was in the country over the last weekend, has seen young children, underage, driving these vehicles. Some of them actually know how to drive them, but many of them are totally inexperienced and immature and do not know the rules of the road and do not know how to drive them. That is why the law is there. I think we have an obligation, Mr. Chairman, to the people of this Province, to ensure that this safety issue is brought to their attention.

I wonder if the minister can advise the House whether she has had an opportunity to confer with officials on this point, since the matter was raised on Tuesday, and would she advise the House as to whether or not such an information program is going to be made available to school children before the end of the school year, which is coming about the third week of June?

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 1 to 8 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: I would not want the Minister of Government Services to let the time go by without responding to that. I know she was having a conference with another member when I asked a question, whether or not she has had an opportunity to confer with her officials to determine whether or not it would be possible to have the kind of information program that I talked about, in terms of safety and in terms of the rules for the use of these all-terrain vehicles by children, so that children can have it before school is out, because the time of the season. Perhaps she has not had an opportunity, and I would be happy with that answer. Rather than leave it hanging, I would like her to at least have an opportunity to answer that question. I do not think she heard my question because she was having a conference with another hon. member.

CHAIR: The Chair looked to his left and did not see anybody standing, but certainly the minister can respond if she so desires.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Yes, I am looking at that. You made a suggestion there the week about it and I am going to consult with my officials to see. It is a very good suggestion.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 1 to 8 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 8 are carried.

On motion, Clauses 1 to 8 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 21 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 21 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 4, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2 (Bill 20)

CHAIR: Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to have a few words on this because we spoke to it on Tuesday night. This is the only bill that is coming forward, where government can talk about this for two years without having to spend any money. There will be no money in the pockets of low-income earners until 2006, and this is 2004. They can rally around this bill for the next two years but it will put no money into the pockets of people.

This is the same government that cancelled the students' tax credit. They had no apprehension about doing that. They are the same government that would not pay the seniors a fuel subsidy. They are the same government that was going to clawback $5 from the seniors' pension. They have come out with this now, and I agree with this concept of putting money into the hands of people who need it the most, low-income earners. I totally agree with that concept, but why you are not doing it any earlier than 2006 is remarkable. I cannot understand that. In fact, the minister never gave us the cost of implementing this measure, because he knows full well it will cost the government zero in years 2004 and 2005.

This is the same government that decided to increase the ambulance fees up to $115 for seniors and the same crowd that increased the park fees and the death certificates. The actual concept of providing a break for low-income earners, I agree with it, but I think to bring it in 2004 and not put any monies in the hands of people until 2006, so they can have a propaganda campaign for the next two years, is despicable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to acknowledge that the President of Treasury Board, the other night at second reading, did indicate the cost of implementing this, some $5 million, although it will not, as the previous speaker said, have any benefit to anybody in this Province for another two years.

I think this government, to bring in this measure now in this Budget, and then to talk about how they have done something for low-income people, is very disingenuous, Mr. Chair, and certainly misleading for government to continue to say that. I guess I have stood today to reiterate that point because I really do not want to hear the government continuing to repeat, again and again and again, that they are doing this for low-income people when they are not doing it at all. If they had a moratorium, Mr. Chairman, on these statements for two years, I would be very happy, because it gives a false expectation and a false impression to people who will be looking in their income tax returns for their rebate, wondering where the money is that they are supposed to be saving, and will be very disappointed that this government did not deliver on what they thought was a promise.

Mr. Chairman, I know this government did not say it was going to come into effect right now, but they leave that little point out when they start talking about it. They leave out the point that it is not going to come into effect for two years. That is the kind of doublespeak that we have been getting on Budget matters from this government. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is very, very unfortunate.

As I said the other night, this is probably the only thing that allows this Progressive Conservative government to call it progressive; but, in fact, Mr. Chairman, if they really wanted to show their progressiveness they would have implemented this right now. They could very easily have done it by taking back the obviously unaffordable tax break that was given to high income earners several years ago. That tax break, Mr. Chairman, if they had reversed that, the high income earners would have produced another $70 million a year for this fiscal year. They could have brought that in right away. They could have increased it from the $5 million that would be given back in 2006. They could have increased that to provide that nobody under the low income cut-off, or the poverty rate, would pay an income tax. They could have done that. They could have increased that to $15,000 for a working person and say that any income under $15,000 would pay no tax. They could have done that by having a fairer tax system. Instead, Mr. Chairman, they have announced this. It remains to be seen whether they actually do it, because an announcement made this year, legislation passed now can be changed next year, can be changed the year after that.

Certainly, we will support it. We will vote for it. We would like to see it amended. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to suggest that it would be brought in for this taxation year coming would be futile because this government would vote it down. That is what should happen, Mr. Chairman. It should be brought in immediately and not just being put in the legislation now to have PR value for this government but no real benefit to the people who desperately need some relief from the circumstances brought about by low income.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2." (Bill 20)

Should clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the long title of Bill 20 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Shall I report Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 20 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 23)

CHAIR: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill 23)

CLERK: Clause 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 4.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is here because I just wanted to address one particular point of this and seek a confirmation from the minister. I believe I am right on this, and I am not going to get into too much complication here, but what this bill does, in part, is ensure that the MUN pensioners, people who retire from MUN faculty and staff, who are subject to this pension plan, that they have a partial indexing of their pension; so, as inflation goes up, the consumer price index for Canada goes up, the value of the pension benefit will go up over time to a maximum of 1.2 per cent in any one year. That is generating what is known in the accrual accounting world as an unfunded liability. I should not make the joke, I suppose. The Minister of Finance sort of talks about accrual accounting but most people experience it as cruel accounting, I say to the Minister of Finance, when this government uses it as a reason to cut back on things, but that is an aside.

The accrual accounting method discovers an unfunded liability as a result of this increase in the benefit, and it seems to me that this legislation in clause 2 says that the minister can set a rate of contribution high enough to cover that unfunded liability over the next forty years so that the pension contribution of the employees will actually increase to cover the cost of this, and that it is amortized over forty years, so it will take forty years to pay this off, and that is a realistic thing to do.

The real question that I want to ask is this, and the confirmation is this: Will the minister confirm that this particular legislation will ensure that the pension benefit, the indexing, will apply not only to employees, the faculty members and staff, who retire next year, but also to people who have already retired, that somebody who is on a pension now - and this is my understanding. I have had some communication with the MUN pension plan committee people and that is their understanding, that that is what it is supposed to be. I wonder if the minister can confirm that, indeed, the pension benefits that are conferred by this legislation, actually go, not just to people who will retire in the years to come but to people who are already in receipt of a pension, that on a go-forward basis next year they would be entitled to an increase if inflation reaches at least 1.2 per cent, which I am assuming it will because it has been doing that for the last couple of years, that they will receive that sort of modest increase?

I am assuming this, Mr. Chairman, because if it wasn't the case then I guess there wouldn't really be an unfunded liability, because it would be done on a pay-as-you-go basis. I think that at least that was the intention that came forward from the pensions committee to the Board of Regents, and I presume form the Board of Regents to the government, that there be some assurance that the pension benefit, the indexing, would apply to current pensioners who are in receipt of pensions from the MUN pension plan.

Perhaps the minister can address that. I think it is a positive step forward, to see this kind of partial indexing, especially as longevity increases and as we have early retirement. Someone may be on a pension for a period of twenty years or more, hopefully. Hopefully they will live a nice long life and can be in receipt of a pension benefit for a long time. To see that eaten away year by year by year to the point that we have now - we have the teachers complaining about it, for example, and retired people in the public service complaining about the fact that the value of their pension is shrinking. To have this here is a positive thing. It obviously has to be paid for. The MUN pension plan is in the best shape or all our pension plans, and we are grateful to see that.

Will the minister confirm - I see he has had a chance to look at his briefing notes - that indeed existing pensioners will benefit from this indexing, that next year, the year after, and the year after that, they will be able to receive, or the retired staff member or retired faculty member from MUN, would have the benefit of this indexing?

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, I will tell him I do not have a briefing note on that, but I will tell him my interpretation. I did not ask for one because when I read it it was fairly clear to me, as it is to you, the same as the Public Service Pension Plan when it was put into indexing for people. It was people who are the recipients and future recipients of the plan. That is my understanding. I do not see anything in this bill to say otherwise.

In fact, what it spells out is that "The Minister of Finance shall by directive set the rate of contributions..." because right now in the Memorial University Pension Plan, it is my understanding there is roughly an $8 million shortfall on $700 million. It is very insignificant in total fund. It is 97.5 per cent, approximately, funded now. Any recipient of that plan, that is my understanding - the bill does not specify otherwise - now would be entitled to get this indexing in the plan.

I will use an example. I think prior to 1997, I believe, in the NLTA, anybody who was under the stacking provision did not get the indexing under that plan. I cannot speak whether Memorial University had a stacking provision there. I am not aware if they had, to be honest with you, prior to it, but this particular bill here does not specify or single out that it applies to a select group of people. Maybe the hon. member might know if they had a unique or a stacking provision in terms of benefits there.

NLTA is a bit different. I am assuming, and that is my understanding - I can certainly check that point for him, but it is my understanding that it is inclusive of people who are recipients in the plan. The NLTA, it was not inclusive because there was a stacking provision. I will check the point, but my understanding of it, it is the same as the hon. member's understanding of it, is that it is inclusive. That the consumer price index now would be based upon the consumer pricing. There is a consumer price index, I know, for Canada and for our Province. When we looked at adding an inflationary amount to a previous bill we talked about low income people, we are adding - the inflation for Newfoundland and Labrador was 2.9 per cent and Canada was over 3 per cent at the time. It is really irrelevant if it is beyond 2 per cent anyway because we are getting the one-point-two amount added to it.

Hopefully, that answers the question. If there is a further question he wants to ask on that that needs more clarification on what the history, way back on the MUN pension plan - I am not fully conversant way back in the history of the MUN pension plan but I do not think, from my knowledge of it, that there are stipulations like that, like stacking with the NLTA.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer. I do not believe they have a two-tier system, or whatever you want to call it, a two-type system but I am not sure on that. I realize the minister does not have a note on that. He cannot answer the question here today, but I think it is an answer that should be put on the record of the House because it has been asked to me whether or not this bill actually reflects the intention. I am assuming that it does, the way I read it. The minister is assuming that. I would be a lot happier, and I am sure the current pensioners of the MUN pension plan would be a lot happier if we had that confirmation on the record. I am sure that is something which could be done on the record of the House at third reading. I am prepared to leave it at that for now. If the minister could have the answer when we - I don't think we are doing third reading today, are we?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You are hoping to do third reading today. Well, if we are going to do third reading today maybe the minister can get that answer before third reading because otherwise I will be forced to talk about it again.

CHAIR: A bill, "An Act to Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill 23)

Shall clauses 1 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 4 is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act to Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 23, An Act to Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 23, is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 6, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act to Create A Pension Plan for Provincial Court Judges. (Bill 24)

CHAIR: A bill, "An Act to Create A Pension Plan for Provincial Court Judges." (Bill 24)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 32.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 32 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 32 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 32 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act to Create A Pension Plan for Provincial Court Judges.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 24, An Act To Create A Pension Plan for Provincial Court Judges, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 24 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report significant progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bills 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 passed, without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole House reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 22, 21, 20, 23 and 24 carried, without amendment. When shall the report be received? Now?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now. When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills read a third time presently by leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I move that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, be now read a third time. I believe that is where we are.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 22 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 22, An Act to Amend The Mineral Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 22)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act to Amend The Mineral Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 21)

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

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

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

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

I move that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No 2. (Bill 20)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No 2, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

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

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

I move that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, be now read a third time.

I do believe that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has an answer to the question posed by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I will confirm that his assumption and my answer are correct, that it does pattern the Public Services Pension Plan. I confirm that for him, and there is no other stipulation. Any recipients now, or future recipients, would come under the indexing provision as it applies to the Public Services Pension Plan too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 23)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 24, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 24, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges. (Bill 24)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

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

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

Before I move the adjournment motion, according to Standing Order 11, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday the House not rise at 5:30 p.m., and do further move that on Monday the House not rise at 10:00 p.m.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that the House do adjourn and come back on Monday.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, May 31, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.