The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome some visitors to our galleries. To my immediate right, we have some students from Marystown Central High School from the District of Burin-Placentia West, twenty-one students, and their chaperones: Vivian Rose, Carl Rose, and Mary McCarthy. We are delighted to have you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also to the Speaker's right, we have thirty-two junior high school students and they are from Hillview Academy in Norris Arm, in the District of Lewisporte. We would like to welcome them to our House of Assembly with their teachers: Rosanna Hillier, Wayne West, Sheldon Kirby, and their bus driver Dan Penton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also in the galleries this afternoon, to the Speaker's left, we have members of the executive of the Right to Life Association: Ms Noreen Brien, Reverend Fabian Ollerhead, Mr. Patrick Hanlon, Ms Karen Hynes and Miss Betsy Gill. I would like to welcome them as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by members. The Speaker has knowledge of the following statements: the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for St. John's North, and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, I did not see the hon. Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order.

A point of order being called by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to raise this point before we move to the regular proceedings of the day.

As everyone knows in the Legislature, we are now at a stage, a very important stage, of the Budget Debate, the Estimates Committees, where we do a very important function of the Budget Debate and a very important function of this House. It is not done in a televised setting, but it is an adjunct of exactly what we are doing right here in this Legislature, an important part of it. It is an essential part, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone acknowledges, of the Budget Debate itself.

The tradition has been - and we have checked this with the Chair and with the Table, the Table Officers - the tradition has been that the minister responsible has always been there to answer the questions for the department in which the Estimates are being examined, because that is the point - and there were questions yesterday that were raised in Question Period, where ministers said: Those are questions that are more appropriate for the Estimates because you are looking for detail. It is a very detailed examination.

Mr. Speaker, tonight in this Legislature we have slated again the detailed examination of the Budget for the new Department of Business, and everybody in the Province knows that the minister responsible is the Premier. The minister responsible is not available and the Opposition has offered, on several occasions, to defer and delay and accommodate the Premier's schedule as the minister responsible so that we can get the detailed answers from the minister responsible, who happens to be the Premier.

We have been told, Mr. Speaker, by the Government House Leader, that the Minister of Finance would be here instead, and that he would be available to answer the questions. Yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Finance, while answering questions about transportation, and while answering questions about human resources and employment, and student employment opportunities - and it is in Hansard - acknowledged that: I do not know the details of every department and I cannot really give you a full answer to these questions. I would prefer that you wait and not ask about layoffs because I will have to get more information from the minister later.

Mr. Speaker, now we are being asked to accept that minister tonight for the detailed examination about the new Department of Business. In our view, as the Official Opposition, that defeats the whole purpose of a very important and integral part of the process for Budget examination. We are again, I state, ready to accommodate the Premier's schedule at any time so that he can come and talk to us about the details of the new Department of Business, that he is the minister responsible for, that it is his own brainchild as to what it is and why it should be there.

Mr. Speaker, the question that I raise for you in the point of order is this: If there is no agreed-to change, which we would still like to see accommodated, that we arrange it at some other time, at the Premier's convenience some time in the next three weeks, the question in the point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is this: What is the status of a Committee meeting, of an Estimates Committee meeting, if the Vice-Chair, who is from the Official Opposition, and the Official Opposition members of the Committee, are not present at the meeting, Mr. Speaker? I would like clarification on that particular issue because we are going to have to deal with that matter some time between now and 7 o'clock this evening, and we would not want to see anything go astray with respect to the very important Estimates procedure.

We think what is being laid before us right now defeats the whole intent and purpose and we have not had the co-operation of the government at this point. We are willing to co-operate at any time. We have not had an opportunity to speak to the Premier directly as to when he might like to appear. That being the case, unless there is some agreement and some understanding, the question would be: What is the status of that very important, critical Committee meeting if there are no members of the Opposition present when the Committee attends to the business before it, Mr. Speaker?

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

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

I do not know how to deal with this point. I think it is more of a point of frustration by the Leader of the Opposition than anything. Let me deal with it in this regard. The Leader of the Opposition was Premier of the Province and, understanding the Estimates - he has been here for fourteen years - understanding how the Estimate procedure works, part of the Estimates, for example, are debated in the House. The Premier's Office, for example, is debated in the House.

In the eleven years that I have been here, former Premier Wells, former Premier Tobin, former Premier Tulk and, more importantly, former Premier Grimes, when debating the Estimates of the Premier's Office, and salaries, not once did any of those Premiers ever show up in this House so that we could ask them about their Estimates. Guess who did it? It was the Minister of Finance, debating Executive Council and providing answers on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Premier. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is more of a political exercise and a bit of theatre.

I understand the point that they are trying to make in terms of - the Estimate procedures will go ahead tonight. Whether members of the Opposition wish to show up and participate in that debate, that is clearly their choice, but I can tell you what will happen tonight. The Estimates will proceed. The Minister of Finance will not be there tonight, the Minister of Industry will be there, and government members of the Committee will show up and debate those Estimates. Whether members on the Resource Committee, from the Opposition, choose to come or choose not to come, that is their choice, but the opportunity certainly will be provided for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, I do not know - first of all, I would like to distinguish what the Government House Leader just said about Premiers who did not appear here in the House when Estimates were being done versus the situation that was addressed by the Leader of the Opposition.

We are not dealing with a situation where the Premier, as the Premier, is failing or refusing to attend an Estimates Committee. We are dealing with the Premier of this Province in his capacity - as he himself appointed himself - the minister responsible for the newly created Department of Business. That is certainly a very distinct situation from what has been alluded to by the Government House Leader, which was a case where Premiers, instead of being here, had Ministers of Finance deal with the overall Estimates on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader referred to this as a political exercise. I do not know what is political about the Opposition or the people of this Province insisting and expecting that the minister of a department would answer to the people of this Province for his or her department. I do not know what the Minister of Business or the Government House Leader might have to fear from his attendance. If it was such a great idea to have a department and to make yourself the minister of it, what is wrong with a reasonable request that you would like to have the person who established it and the person who is the head of it, answer questions about it? It fails me. For the life of me, I cannot understand.

If we were imposing upon the Premier's schedule, I can understand where he would say: I would have to reschedule it. That is not an issue. That has been addressed. The Opposition will attend, at any time that this House is open in this spring sitting, so that this Premier, the Minister of Business, can do that Estimates Committee. It is a matter of the Government House Leader, who refuses to even ask the Premier - the Premier is out of the country, he has refused to even ask the Premier, who is the minister, if he is prepared to agree to such a rescheduling. The Government House Leader, and that is where I question another point: Can the Government House Leader speak for the Premier, in saying: I am not going to attend? I am not even going to ask him, the Government House Leader said. Now, how can we accept such dictatorial behaviour and expect to call this a democracy when one of the procedures that has been in this government for twenty-five years - without exception, ministers appear.

We had a case as early as this morning. I just received notification from the Member for Trinity North, who chairs one of the Estimates Committees, saying: Do you mind, we are going to change the Education Estimates from Monday to another date, any problem? No, there is no problem because the Minister of Education could not be available, and the Opposition accommodate them. The Minister of Natural Resources, the Government House Leader, himself, asked me this week: Do you mind if we reschedule the estimates for Natural Resources from this week to next week? We agreed. We are only asking the same thing of the Department of Business. Can we reschedule so that the Premier can answer the questions? Now, it is either the case of the Premier is afraid to speak for the department that he created, or the Premier does not know what he might be asked and is afraid that he might not know the answers.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Government House Leader, I did the courtesy of listening to him, now maybe you do not like to hear the points that I am making here that are very rational points, but again, the people of this Province have to know: Why is a democratically accepted and operating piece of this Legislature, for example, Estimates - and, as I just said, there are two examples where we have changed them already this week. Why are we being dictated to and having it driven down the throats of the people of this Province again, that it is our way or no way? What does the Premier of this Province have to fear from appearing before an Estimates Committee to deal with facts about his own department? Answer the people.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will look at several issues that have been raised. The Chair will get back to the House this afternoon, no later than around 4 o'clock after we have some time following Question Period when I can consult with the Table Officers and also look at some of the precedents that we may have in our own House. But before the afternoon is up, the Chair will make a ruling on this particular matter.

Statements by Members, the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise and welcome the students from Marystown Central High School in the great District of Burin-Placentia West. I would like at this time to thank their chaperones and the students for their interest in this House and the happenings that occur within. They would like to extend a thank you, to you, Mr. Speaker, for providing them with a tour.

Mr. Speaker, these students represent two groups within the school. One group is attending the Techsploration Event being sponsored by the Women's Resource Centre as part of a mentorship program aimed at encouraging women to enter the engineering and science field.

The second group come from the Exceptionally Abled Program which has been operating at Marystown Central High School now for several years very successfully.

Mr. Speaker, the talents of Ms Jennifer Walsh, I have mentioned before in a previous Member's Statement. Today, I would officially like to recognize Jennifer and inform all members of this House that you will likely hear her voice through the mediums of radio or television this coming summer. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, Jennifer wrote and performed the official theme song for the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games which are being held in Marystown from August 7-14.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. JACKMAN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JACKMAN: As well, Mr. Speaker, some of these students have recently attended events in Ottawa. Jennifer Walsh and Gillian Green have attended The Encounters With Youth Canada, and Matthew Moulton attended the Forum for Young Canadians. Another student in this group, Sarah Graham, has been awarded an entrance scholarship in the amount of $3,500 to Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all of these students and their chaperons, and I wish them all the best in the future.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a student in my district on his recent accomplishments in francophone public speaking.

Mr. Speaker, Yuri Gidge, a student of Exploits Valley High in Grand Falls-Windsor, is one of eight students recognized from across the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for his skills in francophone public speaking. The contest, sponsored by the Canadian Parents for French Newfoundland and Labrador, was a successful event and included forty-five students from across the Province.

From this contest, Yuri won the right to be part of a group that will attend a Franco-Forum summer camp in St. Pierre this summer.

These students have also been invited to attend and compete in a national speak-off in Edmonton, Alberta, this May 29^th.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Yuri Gidge and wish him a successful national competition, an enjoyable summer camp, and continued success with his francophone studies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here today to congratulate the participants and winners of the public speaking activity held at St. Peter's Elementary in Mount Pearl.

The students were articulate, clear and full of confidence. They were fine examples of the quality of young people we have in this Province for our future. I congratulate them all.

Mr. Speaker, I was one of the judges for the speaking competition, and I must say it was a very difficult deciding on the winners. The experience gained by all speakers will be very valuable, and I wish them all good luck in their future endeavours.

Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, the winners and runners-up are: Grade 4,winner, Matthew Morry, runners-up, Julia Mercer and Kaitlyn Hickey; Grade V, winner, Sean Leonard, runners-up, Stephanie Gallant and Samantha McGrath; Grade VI, winner, Amy Holwell, runners-up, Erin Shea and Michael Brushett.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to join with me in congratulating the students, teachers and parents who helped with this important activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, tomorrow night, and Saturday night, the Prince of Wales Collegiate production of Les Misérables will be presented at the Mount Pearl Glacier. The show was originally scheduled for the Arts and Culture Centre in April but, unfortunately, was postponed by the labour dispute.

As many will know, Les Misérables is a story set in early Nineteenth Century France and is a story of poverty, love, and revolution, but above all the strength of the human spirit. In addition to the untold hours of practice by the cast, and the work of more than 100 volunteers, the school has invested approximately $50,000 to bring this production to the stage. It is truly unfortunate that they were forced to struggle to find another venue for the production but, like the characters in the play, they have conquered adversity and the show will go on.

At this point, the tickets have not all been sold, so I would encourage anyone and everyone who wants an enjoyable night, while at the same time lending support to an extremely hard working group of our youth, to contact the Glacier and book a ticket.

Come out and see Josh Case as Jean Valjean, Leslie Cunningham as Fantine, and witness an extraordinary presentation.

I offer my complete support to these students and I ask the general public, as well as members of this House, to offer any support possible to this very deserving group of students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has reaped tremendous benefits from thousands of our residents who freely volunteer their time and talents to make this place we call home a better place to live.

One of these volunteers was recently recognized for more than fifty years of volunteerism in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and I am pleased today to add my congratulations to Mrs. Eva Coffey of Angel's Cove, Placentia Bay.

Eva, or as she is known by some "the shah" has spent the last five decades contributing freely to her community, her region, and indeed to the Province as a whole.

Following in the footsteps of her father, Mr. Richard Dalton, Eva began a business on the Cape Shore many years ago. From the Hilltop Lounge to Eva's store and gas bar in Angel's Cove, she interacted with many, sought donations from several, and sold tickets to everyone. From organizing and funding the Santa Claus parades, to a long service member of the Cape Shore Area Development Association, to the founding member of the Cape Shore Crime Prevention Committee and the Angel's Cove Recreation Committee, Eva was always there.

Eva also spent several years as a member of the Angel's Cove/Patrick's Cove local service district association, involved with the Friends of the Cape St. Mary's Association, an active member of our parish community, and a great friend to Fatima Academy at St. Bride's.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Still today, at the tender age of eighty-three, Eva serves as Treasurer of the Cape Shore Area Seniors Housing Association.

For fifty-plus years, Eva has given of herself to others and, on April 18, surrounded by family and friends at the Fairmont Hotel here in St. John's, the Community Service Council presented Eva with a prestigious award for her years of volunteerism. My only regret is that I was not able to be present as she was so rightfully presented and recognized for her efforts.

I have known Eva for many years, have had the privilege of serving on many boards and committees with her, and can attest to the fact that neither the words "no" or "can't" are not part of her vocabulary, and she always gave 100 per cent to everything she was part of.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in congratulating Mrs. Eva Coffey on receiving her award and wish her many more years of health and happiness as she continues with her volunteer work.

Thank you, Eva, for a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the tenders for municipal capital works projects are projected to exceed $100 million in 2004.

Approximately 260 capital works projects across Newfoundland and Labrador, at a total cost of about $100 million, will create up to 60,000 person-weeks of direct and indirect employment. These projects are providing residents of our Province with important employment and they will help strengthen the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, projects are funded under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program, the Municipal Capital Works Program, the Multi-Year Capital Works Program, as well as the Labrador Inuit Communities Agreement. The provincial government will contribute approximately $52 million towards completion of these projects. Municipal governments will contribute about $38 million, with the balance of $10 million to be funded by the federal government.

Projects under the cost-sharing programs include: water treatment, water and sewer services, waste management, paving, improvements to municipal buildings, firefighting equipment and recreation. These projects will improve the quality of life for our residents and they will help make our municipalities vibrant and strong.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, the Province remains committed to the St. John's Harbour cleanup. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has committed one-third of the $93 million for the project. The remainder of the funding will be cost-shared between the federal government and the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, and the Town of Paradise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the statement before coming to the House. It is great to see the capital works program being announced for the Province so that some of the projects that are needed, as he said, for strong and vibrant communities, can begin.

As the minister would know, many of these projects were already negotiated. They are in their second, third and fourth year stage as multi-year capital works for the large municipalities they had an opportunity to work with, and also the commitment that is made there by the provincial government and by the municipalities.

One thing, though, that really sticks out in this particular statement by the minister is the paltry amount that is given by the federal government; $52 million all together, $38 million by the municipalities and $10 million by the federal government. They can like us all they like, we can do whatever we like as far as having a good relationship with them, but it has to be more than that. They have to deliver, and if they deliver to the extent that the municipalities and the provincial government would be delivering -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: Just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: If they were to deliver the same amount, the $52 million by the Province, and $38 million by the municipalities, then we could have a much bigger project. We could employment many more people, and the vibrancy of the communities, especially those in the rural part of the Province, could achieve more, and more could be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we, too, are pleased to see the announcement of $100 million in municipal capital works projects for this year. It is, of course, as the previous speaker noted, noteworthy that the federal government is not contributing significantly, although they have signed on to the harbour cleanup in St. John's, a project that we think is very important and vital to be carried on, but all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, each and every municipality depends on support from the provincial government to have significant projects going, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that this government will commit itself to continuing the level of support that is needed to allow communities to grow and to prosper in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to inform my colleagues in the House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, of another important event in the progress of the White Rose oil project. As soon as weather permits, a 1200-tonne module will leave on a barge from the Bull Arm fabrication site and make its way to the Kiewit Offshore Services Facility in Marystown.

In April 2003, North Eastern Constructors Limited was awarded the contract by Aker Maritime Kiewit Contractors, more commonly known as AMKC, to fabricate two topsides modules for the White Rose FPSO at the Bull Arm fabrication facility. The larger of the two modules, the main electrical room, has just been completed. The other module, the local electrical room, was completed and shipped to the Kiewit Offshore Services facility in Cow Head in November 2003.

During peak construction, the main electrical room module provided employment for up to 300 skilled tradespeople at the Bull Arm site. Like the smaller module completed in November, the main electrical room has been completed on schedule and is a testimony to the abilities of this Provinces's skilled workforce and to the capabilities of one of our local companies, North Eastern Constructors Limited. It also demonstrates that our facilities at Bull Arm present a competitive and strategic advantage to companies involved in heavy industrial activities, particularly for the offshore oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, the modules completed at Bull Arm will b e loaded aboard the White Rose FPSO, Sea Rose, which arrived in Marystown in April. The arrival of the Sea Rose is another milestone in the development of this Province's oil and gas industry, as the third major oil project. Husky Energy continues to deliver on its commitments that the bulk of the topsides engineering, fabrication, hook-up and commissioning requirements for White Rose are completed in the Province. According to Husky Energy, this $2.35 billion project is on schedule. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members I would like to commend the workforce at both Bull Arm and the Marystown-Cow Head facilities for their commitment and dedication and the expertise that they have shown to the job at hand.

Mr. Speaker, as each of our oil fields has come into production, our capacity to meet the demands of the petroleum industry has expanded. Our companies have risen to meet the challenges of the industry, and our workforce is up to the task of providing the skills necessary, the knowledge and now the experience to support this industry. We are a competitive player in the oil and gas industry, something that I witnessed directly, Mr. Speaker, down at the recent OTC conference in Houston.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank You, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. It is, indeed, good news to see that this module is ready. It is actually the first module done in the history of our offshore industry in this Province that has come in on time and on budget. It is nice also to know that it was the former Administration that arranged for the use of the Bull Arm fabrication site.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was due to the insistence of the former Administration that Bull Arm was even included in the White Rose package. Upon the insistence, 80 per cent of all the work associated with the White Rose project is indeed being done in this Province, thanks to the insistence of the former Administration, notwithstanding the comments at that time of the MHA for Trinity North, who felt that is was not sufficient, we were not doing enough. It is nice to see. I understand from the TV reports actually, that 99.9 per cent of the employees on the module were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were working on that site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: They do, indeed, deserve to be commended for a job well done. But, now that the government has chosen this Liberal initiative to - I call it a polling period fluff since we are in a polling period, I guess, and you want to get out some good news. We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to seeing what this new Administration is now going to do about Bull Arm after today. Once we see the float out of what the Liberals have done in Bull Arm this couple of weeks time, we look forward to seeing what they are going to do at Bull Arm next year and what are they going to float in there to see that these people continue to have a job. We currently have a Bull Arm corporation that has no permanent Chair, has no Vice-Chair. We would even like to see some news from the government as to what your future plans are rather than trying to take credit on the backs of something that someone else has already done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty clear from the history of Hibernia, Terra Nova and now with White Rose that the people of this Province, and the workers of this Province have the capability to do a very excellent job in producing equipment and facilities for our offshore. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Clearly, as time goes on, we are getting more and more of the action when it comes to developments.

Mr. Speaker, I did hear a very prominent Newfoundlander, Craig Dobbin, this morning talking in general about our offshore and he kind of echoed, in his way, some of the things I have been saying. He said: One thing about our offshore -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - we are not getting the dough and we are not getting the jobs - and very succinctly set out the problem that we have with our offshore. We are not getting the return from our oil and gas resources that we should. That has to be fixed. Also, we are not getting a sufficient number of jobs. Even the 80 per cent that the previous speaker referred to is 80 per cent of what the oil companies thought could be done in Newfoundland being done here. We think more can be done in the short and long term.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government which promises the new approach will also adopt a new regime that will ensure that we get more in the future developments than we have gotten in the past, both in terms of jobs and production, but also in terms of royalties in return to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the people living in one of the most economically depressed areas in our Province find themselves in another tough situation this week. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the lobster fishermen and women on the West and Northwest of our Province who have had their livelihoods practically wiped out by two storms in recent weeks.

I ask the minister: What representation has he made to the federal government for financial assistance on their behalf, and to whom?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, that, as everybody else is, we are well aware of the situation on the West Coast of the Province, the storm damage that was caused over the past weekend. We have been, through our officials, ascertaining the extent of the damage and we have estimated that it is up somewhere in the vicinity, in property damage, of about $2 million. We have made representation to the federal government, through the minister's regional office here in St. John's, looking for financial assistance for those people in the former of disaster relief.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I can report on the matter for right now. We are awaiting a response from the federal minister, Minister Efford, and I hope to speak with him this afternoon. I am expecting to hear from him sometime around three o'clock.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister heard Mr. Byrne, the federal MP for that district, on CBC radio this morning, but he certainly gave the impression that there would be no financial assistance coming from the federal government. In light of the fact that he has now said this, I ask you, as the Minister of Fisheries for the Province: Will you step in with an emergency relief program for the affected individuals?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I also heard the MP for Humber-St. Barbe, Mr. Byrne, on this morning saying that he didn't anticipate any financial assistance from the federal government. However, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to press for this, given the magnitude of the situation. He did indicate that with Hurricane Juan, I believe it was, there was no assistance to people in Nova Scotia. However, Mr. Speaker, I think when Hurricane Juan blew through, no lobster fishery, and, for that matter, not much of a fishery, was on the go in Nova Scotia at that time and there wasn't much in the way of fishing gear damage.

Mr. Speaker, we will press the federal government. The harvesting sector, as the member knows, is a federal responsibility and we neither have the programs nor the capability to deal with a problem of this magnitude at this time.

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.

So, what the minister is saying is that the provincial government - of which he is a minister - will not give any assistance to those affected people on the West and the Northwest Coast of the Province. I am glad you clarified that for the people in that area.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on to another issue, again on the Northwest Coast of the Province. We are now into the second week of crab fishing and you still have not settled the problem concerning the crab licence in New Ferolle. The minister knows that with each passing week the plant workers in that area are becoming less and less likely to obtain the required number of hours to qualify for EI. I ask you: What are you going to do about this, or are you telling these people that you are not going to do anything about it and that they should move to the mainland to seek employment? Is this what you are saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the first commentary, if his previous Administration had not done away with the gear replacement program in the spring of 2003 - March 6, as I recall - then maybe there would be a gear replacement program still in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the gear was disposed of, the gear was sold off. There is no gear available in the Province's inventory right now to respond. That is that point.

On the second point, on New Ferolle, we have waited for a response from the parties involved on another proposal. We have, as of my walking into the House today at 1:30, not received anything. Prior to my coming into the House, Mr. Speaker, I did show some leadership in this matter, as I have been trying to do all the way through. We did send a letter to the parties involved: Mr. Eveleigh representing Ice Cap Fish Co., and Mr. Doyle representing James Doyle (Sr.) & Sons Limited, and proposed -

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

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We proposed an interim arrangement whereby we could see the plant operational in very short order with these matters dealt with by November 1, if it is agreeable to the parties, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about government cancelling a program in 1993. I was not a part of the government at that time. I would also like to say to the minister, simply because a program was cancelled in 1993 does not give the minister an excuse that he cannot come forward to help these people today.

I ask him again, Mr. Speaker: What is he going to do for those lobster fishermen and women on the West and Northwest Coast of this Province who, as he knows, probably will not qualify for EI this year because his government refuses to act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening he would have heard me say 2003. It was last spring, about this time, that the previous Administration made a decision - when he was in Cabinet - to end the gear replacement program, to end the lobster pot replacement program, and to dispose of the pots that were remaining in inventory, even though, Mr. Speaker - I will say this - had they not done it, our capabilities would still have been very limited to be able to respond to this devastation on the West Coast. There are many thousands of pots demolished over there. There is $2 million in damage and, whether or not we were prepared to do it, we could not snap our fingers and tomorrow get the many thousands of pots that were required to replace the gear that was lost to assist these fishermen. We will press the federal government to step in on disaster relief, but only the federal government can make the decision on that matter.

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, I would like to ask a question about the automobile insurance legislation. On March 17, this year, the Premier and the Minister of Government Services announced their revised plans for new auto insurance legislation. During that announcement, the Premier and the minister - and I understand that the minister has answered questions before, the Premier has answered questions before, and they have an alternate minister as well who certainly knows the details - the Premier and the minister announced a freeze on insurance rates that was supposed to be effective immediately. It has been almost two months since then, Mr. Speaker, since that announcement. We have still not seen the legislation. We understand that it is due any day now. There has been no freeze on insurance rates, as consumers have been telling everybody in the Province who will listen, and the people of the Province continue to pay through the nose for automobile insurance.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Where is the freeze on insurance rates that was announced and promised on March 17? When the government introduces the legislation, which I understand we will get some time soon, has the government ensured that the freeze that was announced and promised on March 17 will actually be in the legislation and will be effective and retroactive to March 17?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the alternate minister, I am pleased to answer the question. The issue is before Cabinet. We are bringing legislation to the House this session, Mr. Speaker. We have made promises that this legislation will be brought before the House. The legislation will be brought before the House this session, and that legislation guarantees insurance freezes, as we have indicated, Mr. Speaker. We made the announcement on March 17, that we will be bringing this legislation forward, and this legislation will be brought forward in this session.

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, unfortunately, it seems obvious that maybe the only one who knows any of the answers to the insurance questions are the Premier himself. The minister before did not know. This alternate minister now could not confirm that the freeze was going to be retroactive to March 17, even though he said it was discussed in the full Cabinet. All of them should know. Any one of the ministers should be able to get up and answer the question. We are going to have the bill, we understand, in a matter of a couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, on August 27 last year, before the election while in Opposition, the Premier announced in his people proposal for automobile insurance reform, a plan that put the consumer first. On March 17, what we saw and what we saw introduced, in fact, was the Williams, Roebothan, McKay, Marshall proposal, a plan that ignores the consumer and puts the legal community first, Mr. Speaker, and I have a copy of it right here in my hand.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this. There has been a major change from the cap in August before the election to a deductible, which is in this proposal from Williams, Roebothan, McKay and Marshall.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his question, quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question is: Has there been another change since then, or do we still have the lawyers' proposal now coming forward in the legislation new week instead of the people's proposal that would have actually seen some real reductions in insurance premiums for the consumers? Which one is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The details, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have outlined in a news release, in a press conference on March 17. Those details will be put forward when the legislation is brought to this House within the next week to ten days. The Leader of the Opposition, and all members of the Opposition, will have ample time to debate that legislation when the legislation is brought forward to this House, Mr. Speaker. We had outlined what we intend to do on March 17 when we made the announcement, and that legislation is forthcoming.

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.

A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I have read this proposal with great interest and there are tremendous similarities, great similarities between the Williams, Roebothan, McKay and Marshall brief to the government in 2001 and the March 17 proposal released to the public, which will be in the legislation that we will get next week. Meanwhile, there are many differences between what is in the legislation that we will see next week and what was said before the election.

Mr. Speaker, because there are such major changes, will the government commit to having public opportunities for input in the new legislation because it is so different than what they talked about before the election? More to the point, in this Legislature, will the government agree to have a legislative committee of this House actually given the time to hold some public sessions to have input into the bill, which is so very similar to the Williams, Roebothan, McKay and Marshall proposal and so very different from anything that they promised before the election?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Will we have the public opportunities in the Legislature and in public forums?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

To the Leader of the Opposition's question, this legislation is coming before the House. Each of the members of the House speak on behalf of the public in their districts. We announced this legislation on March 17. We have received public input ourselves. We have consulted with the other Atlantic provinces, Mr. Speaker, to see what was working and what was not working in their jurisdictions and, as a result, we have put forward a proposal that will be debated before this House. Each member in this House will have ample time, during that debate, to consult with the people from their own districts. As far as the Leader of Opposition's recommendation that we put together a committee of this House, I will take that under advisement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Government Services, or her alternate. I am concerned about public safety. By now, everybody in the Province knows about the safety problems being created on our highways because of this right-wing government, but there are other serious public safety issues arising from these government cuts to various inspectors in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know the status of food inspectors, water quality inspectors and boiler inspectors. I ask the minister: Is he concerned that public safety in this Province is being compromised because certain inspections, such as those in elevators, are not being done in a timely manner?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, public safety and the health and safety of the people of this Province is always a top priority for government. It is a top priority for our government and we will ensure that whatever measures are necessary to ensure that continued health and safety for the people of this Province are there, will be there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the public safety of the people of this Province. Even the elevators in this building have expired certificates in them. That is how important the public safety is in this Province. What other inspections are not being done, for instance, like on high pressure industrial boilers?

I ask the minister: If the elevators in the main government building in this Province are not being inspected, how can we have confidence that inspections in other areas of the Province are being done and the public safety is not being compromised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have just come from a one-month delay as a result of the public service strike. We are in the process of catching up on inspections. Public health and safety is a top priority for this Administration and those inspections will be done. As fast as we can catch up with those inspections, they will be conducted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, coming from a member of a former Public Accounts Committee who said, and I remember quite well, that the number of inspectors in this Province should be doubled. So, it is quite interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I guess they are a little bit behind, but how much further will they be behind next year when all of our inspectors are gone?

Mr. Speaker, on another topic, we recently had a problem in this Province where people who had prepaid for funerals could have lost a lot of money, a very serious issue. I ask the minister: Can he confirm that the position of his minister's department responsible for monitoring the trust fund for prepaid funerals has been cut? Minister, do you know who is going to do that work now? Who is going to protect the interests of the people who have payed into these prepaid funerals?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is the duties here that are important. As long as the work is being done, that is what is important. We will ensure, Mr. Speaker, that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: We will ensure that the work that is required of the Department of Government Services is done, and that work will continue, Mr. Speaker.

To the previous questions, as with public health and safety, we take that issue very seriously. We take the issue that the member just raised very seriously, and we will ensure that the work is completed.

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 Minister of Education.

Since my questions on the College of the North Atlantic the other day, it appears that the number of layoffs, including the thirty-four resulting from the $2 million shortfall, is, in fact, going to be higher than forty-five amongst faculty and support staff of the College of the North Atlantic this year, with a close down of thirteen programs over eight campuses.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that is the fact, and will he not agree that the effect of the close down of thirteen program, if history is any guide, will be that his government's policies have effectively passed over these thirteen programs to the private college system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the college, a number of days ago, in the issuance of a press release, indicated that there were thirty-five positions that would be lost as a result of a review; a review which is done - and this is being acknowledged by the college - on an annual basis with a view to determining what is in the students' interests in terms of those programs that should continue. Yes, it is done throughout a variety of campuses throughout the Province. It is done on an annual basis, and it was done once again this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since it is follow-up day, I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs if he can explain why - since the Minister of Finance could not yesterday - some thirty people are being laid off in the maintenance department, when the Auditor General told us last December that inspections are not being carried out of bridges, for example, and that, of the ones that were done, forty-seven of them were found to be in unsafe condition. Yet, the people who carry out these inspections have all been laid off yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by this government.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, did a marvelous job yesterday in explaining the situation to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I cannot help it, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not have the ability to absorb the answer. I cannot help that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: It appears, from the hon. member's question yesterday and his question again today, that the old saying about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing is what is at play here, because - bridge inspection, for example, he refers to - there is no cutback anywhere in our Bridge Inspection Program. The first level -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, will you find something in Beauchesne to handle the hon. gentleman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer. You have about ten seconds left.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there are three levels of bridge inspection in this Province. The first level is the maintenance supervisors. All of those have been declared redundant but have been replaced. The second level is at the regional departmental level in the regions of the Province. There are no layoffs there. The third level is the Chief Bridge Engineer and his staff, Mr. Speaker, at headquarters, and there are no layoffs there. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no basis at all to the question posed by the hon. gentleman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs thinks that the minister did a great job yesterday, he obviously got that information from the minister. He did not read Hansard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if this government is saying that they have not laid anybody off, we have the same level of bridge inspection as before, he should reread what the Auditor General said, when he said that these bridges had not been inspected for two years. The minister should be hiring on more people to inspect bridges and roads, and not laying them off or declaring them redundant or whatever else it is that he is doing that he has not told people.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I saw my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, last night on the late news, on NTV news, and he answered with all kinds of clarity and articulation the questions that were posed to him by the reporters outside. I am sure that he did the same thing here when the hon. gentleman posed a question.

Mr. Speaker, I have some ability to respond to questions and so on, but I take no responsibility for things that happened on the watch of the hon. ladies and gentlemen opposite when they were government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is when there were problems with the bridge inspection program, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago, I believe, it was raised by the Auditor General. That has been corrected and the program is now running as it should have been run when they were the government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, after the House of Assembly closed, the Minister for Government Services admitted to me that she was not aware of driver examiner services being withdrawn in certain areas of the Province until the issue was raised in the House of Assembly by the Member for Labrador West. Mr. Speaker, I know that decision was finalized on March 30^th, according to information provided by the Executive Council of government under an FOI request.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister has now agreed to reinstate driver trainer services to the Labrador West area. I ask: Can she confirm, today, that services will be reinstated to my district, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and if those services will be provided by Transportation and Works employees, or if a driver trainer will be making regular scheduled visits into the area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

To the Opposition member's question: That was a working document that was obtained under Freedom of Information. That decision was not final and the Minister of Government Services has said that the services for Southern Labrador and Labrador West will not be affected, that they will remain, and there are no layoffs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Government Services, or alternate.

Minister, given your reversal on the driver license inspection in Lab West, will you consider a similar reversal for Burgeo and Port aux Basques? Also, is the Minister prepared, in the interest of the safety of the 500,000-plus residents of this Province and the 400,000-plus tourists that come to this Province each year, to reverse your decision about the weigh scales at Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I find that question very hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, because while that party was in government, and he was a minister, the weigh scale out in Burgeo & LaPoile district was not in service since this time last year, since last June, almost a full year. For a cost of $8,000, that weigh scale could have been up and running. That Administration, obviously, did not see it as a top priority. They could not spend the $8,000 to get it up and running. The weigh scale that will be at Pynn's Brook will cover 90 per cent of the traffic that comes from Port aux Basques. There is a mobile weigh scale unit that will be in the area. In fact, the weigh scale at Pynn's Brook will cover double the amount of traffic that the weigh scale in Port aux Basques would have covered because it covers traffic from other areas as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Acting Minister of Government Services.

Yesterday, I saw a part of the document budgetary process that was there for each member in each district, services that had been curtailed and services that had been for the district for the year 2004-2005. It specifically stated that in my area we would lose the examiners services to the Bay d'Espoir and to the Harbour Breton region. It is no working document, that was real. In light of what has happened in other areas, can I ask the minister: Will the services be reinstated for the people in the Bay d'Espoir and Harbour Breton areas as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I presume the hon. member across is talking about driver examiners?

MR. LANGDON: Yes, that is right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Mr. Speaker, the decision that was made by government will now allow for driver examiners in the Government Services centres, as well as Motor Registration Divisions. The driver examiners who used to travel would oftentimes travel as much as four hours a day out of a seven-hour working day which would only give them three hours a day to do clerical work, driver examinations, photos and other work. This was not practical.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Man oh man. So The Western Star was right, was it? The Western Star was right. Put everything in St. John's.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in Newfoundland and Labrador when we get Cabinet ministers standing up in this House laughing and joking about layoffs in the public service. I think it is utterly ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is - the rural areas of this Province are being kicked once again by this heartless right-wing Conservative government. They have cut HRE offices. They have increased user fees, slashed student hirings, laid off government employees and jeopardized public safety.

I want to ask the alternate Minister of Government Services today: Will he tell us the status of the driver examination services in the communities of Bonavista, Roddickton, Englee, Trepassey and Bell Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

We only have about twenty seconds left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

From what I understand, I believe his question is the same as the question from the hon. member just before him. So the answer is the same, in the sake of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be a point of clarification actually, for the alternate Minister of Government Services and lands. Just so it is obvious to the people of the Province, he may be reading from an information sheet but that does not necessarily mean that everything he reads is factual and accurate.

He made a comment - and I find the use of the word from this crowd in the government - of hypocrisy in response to a question that I asked about the layoff of four people at the weigh scales in the Port aux Basques weigh scales. I asked a question about safety and he answers it by first of all calling everybody over here hypocrites, and secondly, suggesting that the weigh scales were not working in Port aux Basques since last July and that in some way reflected on the people here.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the weigh scale component of the weigh scales at Port aux Basques were down since last July. That is a fact, but that does not take away from the fact - again, this information is for the minister herself because she ought to know this as well, because she did not know the other day. The four persons who work at the weigh scales in Port aux Basques just do not weigh vehicles. They are inspectors. Every one of the 80,000-plus vehicles that come into this Province get inspected at Port aux Basques. Maybe the Minister of Environment does not mind about our highways being littered with broken down trucks or bodies, but this crowd is not going to take any responsibility for unsafe highways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

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

When we took office and formed government just six or seven months ago, not only did we inherit a broken weigh scale from that side, we also inherited a blank bank account. Mr. Speaker, that is the reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: So his question - if they thought it so important, Mr. Speaker, to have that weigh scale operating, they could have had it operating in the six months that they were there prior to the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution members that points of order should deal with some issue involving parliamentary procedure and some rules which have not been properly applied. The issue here seems to be a willingness and desire perhaps to extend Question Period, or to respond to points raised during Question Period.

The Chair rules there is no point of order. At the same time, I caution members again about using language that clearly in Beauchesne will be found to be unparliamentary. In the context that was used today, it may or may not be parliamentary because the Speaker had difficulty remembering the precise context in which the words were used. The Speaker will take that part under advisement.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order arising from a question and an answer in Question Period. The alternate minister, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, when answering a question about the change in the status of driver examination for Labrador West, acknowledged that there has been a change. He referred to this document: Budget Details and Statistics 2004-2005 for all Provincial Electoral Districts, done by the Executive Council of the government on March 30, three days after the Budget was read in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, when he was explaining this section, Labrador West, and explaining the fact that the statement that is here, this is very important: "Driver examinations will no longer be provided at Labrador City. Persons wishing to take driver exams must travel to a permanent office site, the closest being Happy Valley-Goose Bay."

The question, Mr. Speaker - this is why it is important to have this clarified - was: Has that definitely been changed because the minister, the real minister, said she only became aware of it when the question was asked two days ago? The alternate minister today confirmed: Yes, it has been changed and it will now be provided in Labrador West. His rationale, Mr. Speaker, was this - and this is the point of the point of order - yes, it was changed because this was only a draft document. This was a work in progress. Mr. Speaker, is this a work in progress or not? Because, even on the same page - it is critically important, Mr. Speaker, to the point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is a clear point of order from us being able to perform our duties in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution the member about his language. The floor is to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to get to his point of order rather quickly because we are really extending the issues that were raised in Question Period.

I ask the member to get to his point very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point is a very clear one. It needs to be ruled on. If the members of the Legislature, particularly the Opposition members, cannot rely on documents provided to it under the Freedom of Information Act from the government as being factual and then come to the Legislature and have ministers describe them as being works in progress, does that mean a similar statement with respect to Labrador West, which says there will be increased funding for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in Labrador, does that mean that is a work in progress, or is that a definite commitment, or do we not know?

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: Is it a work in progress? Is it a draft document, or does this reflect what it says, that it is actually Budget details that we will then use to ask our questions in the Legislature? We need to know, and the people of the Province need to know what the status of these particular documents are?

MR. REID: What is wrong with you, afraid?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, interference with the Speaker is not acceptable in this House. I do believe that the member for - do now wish to speak.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the members opposite do not understand that there is a point of order here, this is a question of whether the House is being misled or not by a Minister of the Crown about documents in relation to the Budget. This document is produced - at least the copy that I have was sent to me by the Clerk of the Executive Council, and identifies itself as information regarding a major impact and major initiatives announced in the provincial Budget. It is dated March 30, and it is called Budget Details and Statistics, Economic and Statistics Branch of the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency broken down by district.

Now, the question is whether or not the minister is misleading the House by calling this a work in progress, or whether or not the document that was issued by the Executive Council is in fact an accurate document? If we are being told one thing by the minister, who is telling this House, that whatever we say about this document, that whatever we say that is in it is irrelevant because it is only a work in progress, or is the minister's statement correct? That none of this makes any difference, and what the Executive Council is telling members on this side of the House is not accurate at all. That seems to me to be a very important point about whether or not members can do their jobs without the minister misleading this House about the nature of Cabinet documents.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition listened to what you had to say about a point of order being - normally dealing with an infraction. The fact of the matter is, there is no point of order here, in my view.

I am entitled to my opinion, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and you are not going to stop me from exercising it or stating it in this House. I can say that to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this, we have gone from now - so I understand it. We have gone from - two days ago there was an issue raised by the Member for Labrador West, a very serious issue on behalf of his constituents in Labrador West. The Minister of Government Services stated yesterday that the decision surrounding that is there would be no impact on service to his district, and I would think, Mr. Speaker, that answer would have been sufficient for everybody. Obviously, it is not.

I believe there is no point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to your ruling on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Members are reminded that the Chair can only deal with matters that, I guess, relate to parliamentary procedures and practices. The fact that documents are shared between the Administration on the one hand and the Opposition on the other, and that there are various interpretations that might be placed on those documents, is not a role that the Speaker can adjudicate on. So, the Speaker wishes that the House Leaders would consult on these matters and assure that information they share is reliable.

Therefore, we rule there is no point of order but there is a disagreement among members as to the interpretation of a document which has been shared between the Administration and the Opposition on the other hand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I accept your ruling that, in terms of the duties and the functions we are performing right here, and the rules that we follow in the House, that you have ruled there has been no point of order breached.

Mr. Speaker, we are now down to the issue, then, of parliamentary privilege, and the ability of ourselves, as elected parliamentarians, to be able to conduct ourselves in a responsible fashion and to be able to do our jobs. Mr. Speaker, I think that strikes to the whole heart of it.

Mr. Speaker, as you would know, I always hesitate, but this is the second time, in this short session that we have had, that I have risen to a point of privilege because I believe we have been subject to information from the government that is described in one fashion and then, when dealt with in this Legislature, is described in a different fashion. If that is going to be the case, Mr. Speaker, how are we going to be able to perform our duties as parliamentarians?

Again, just to use this as the example - and, by the way, there are dozens of them in here - the only thing that I, personally, as a parliamentarian, or any of us, or any of the members opposite, can depend upon when we make direct requests of the government - and it was done under the law, under the Freedom of Information Act, to ask: Could you please provide for us the information relating to details of the Budget as they will play out and impact in the forty-eight ridings? - the government, which had it available on March 30, decided to exercise its right, under the law, and not provide it to us until May 7, so we could not ask these questions until this week because we did not have the information.

Government members, the thirty-four on that side - thirty-three and yourself, Mr. Speaker, if you are interested to look for Mount Pearl District, which you may or may not have, as the member. I am sure you probably did, because you have a long history of being a good parliamentarian and taking care of your constituency - then they would have had access to this information for thirty-seven days while we were waiting to get it so we could find out what is in it that needed to and deserved to be questioned.

On one question - because what we have is this: What we have is a minister who was asked a question two days ago, just a couple of days after we finally got the information, who acknowledged that she did not know of the issue until asked in the Legislature. Maybe others opposite did not know of it either, or it was not high enough on the priority scale for them to register real concern. When brought to the attention, then we looked for others and asked other questions, and then excusing - in excusing a change in a decision that had been taken and given to us by the chief civil servant for the whole of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is who the Clerk of the Council is, Mr. Speaker, for those who do not know. It is the number one civil servant for the entire Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the chief of all the deputy ministers. Not a politician. That person put together for us a package of information and described it to us and said: These are the impacts of the Budget decision, the Budget that was read by the Minister of Finance. This is what it means in your district. This is what will happen in your district as a result of those decisions.

Now, because one of them was found to be embarrassing and one of them has since been changed, rightfully so, and we support the change - it is a real quality to recognize a mistake has been made and to make the adjustment. That is a valued quality, rather than being stubborn and standing there and saying: Oh, we made it and we do not care what happens; we are going to continue on.

Then the alternate minister today describes it to us, as elected parliamentarians, as being: Oh, don't mind what you see in that book. Don't mind that. That is only a work in progress. That is only a draft document. What he is trying to suggest to us is: Don't be asking any more questions about what is in here because this is not accurate.

Mr. Speaker, that strikes to the very heart and soul of our ability to function in this Legislature and ask serious, detailed questions about the Budget which we are going to be debating and questioning until the Legislature closes, whether that is three weeks' time or a month's time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a minister today who should apologize to the House, or else someone on behalf of the government has to stand up and say: The Clerk of the Council made a fool of himself and should not send any of that out to any of you. None of it means anything. Don't ask any questions about it. Don't ask any questions about it because it is still a draft, it is still a work in progress.

So, all of the commitments about health care, about education, about the capital works that the minister made a statement on today, about funding for policing, all of those things - all of those are in here as details.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we should have either the minister apologize and say he misunderstood, and say: It was not a work in progress. It was a work that was done, but we decided to change our minds because something came to our attention that made better sense. We realize that we had made a mistake and we are big enough to change it and do the right thing.

Now, that is what should be said. I do not know if the minister will say that or not; but, if the minister is going to stand by his words today, that this is a draft document, a work in progress, then our parliamentary privileges have clearly been breached by someone acting on behalf of the government. Because when a Freedom of Information request goes to the government, it goes through a process but there is a political decision made as to whether or not you provide the information right away or whether you go through the thirty-day procedure under the act and give it to a group of officials to vet, but there is a political decision made by the political elected government in the first instance as to how you deal with the issue. That political decision led to a result of all of us being provided with this documentation and it being presented as being final Budget decisions, and here is how it will impact in the forty-eight electoral districts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not think I need to elaborate any further, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I need to dwell on it any further, other than to say that I do believe that this does strike at the heart of it and I do believe that, if considered by yourself, it would constitute a bona fide breach of privilege.

Then again, as we have done in the past, we could dismiss it all if the minister would only get up and apologize and say: It is not a draft document. It is factual. My mistake. I should have just acknowledge that the minister changed her mind about Labrador West and did the right thing, upon reflection, instead of doing the wrong thing, which was the decision that was taken and written down in black and white for the whole world to see, Mr. Speaker.

I will leave it there and I will leave it to yourself to decide the issue with respect to a point of privilege.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

What I want to say, first of all, is that what happened as a result of the request that was made by, in this case, the Official Opposition, for this information, was, in fact, the parliamentary procedure at work, Parliament at work, members acting on behalf of their constituents.

This document was released by the Executive Council at the request of the Official Opposition, under the legal process. The document was made available to us, as well, and the Member for Labrador West, in reliance on the document, said: There is a decision made that affects my constituents. He brought it to the attention of the minister, who has now agreed to change the decision. The driver examinations that had been decided to be removed from Labrador West - no longer will that happen.

That was members doing their job. Now what we have is the minister, by his statements, totally undoing the ability of members to rely on documents that come from the Executive Council and, in fact, by the minister's statement, challenging the veracity of this document - in its entirety, presumably - by suggesting that a document prepared by the Executive Council, delivered to the members of the Opposition in Parliament - intended, obviously, to be relied upon - that the minister now comes to this House and says that this document has no validity, that it is a work in progress, that it does not represent what the government decisions were, even though that it what it says, and it comes from the Clerk of the Executive Council.

We have a case of the Executive Mr. Speaker - the minister is a part of the Executive - and the Executive is now telling the members of this House that the documents produced by that Executive are invalid.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the official statement of the government then perhaps it should be sent back and revised rather than the kind of way that the minister got on in this House. I think that unless this matter is clarified by the government, by the minister, or by someone on behalf of the Executive, then this House is being misled by the Executive, to the detriment of their ability to perform their functions as Members of the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers to the point of privilege?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to that point of privilege as well because what has occurred here in the last few days certainly has affected our ability to perform our duties for our constituents. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is that some of our individual character has been besmirched because of the activities of the group opposite. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on reading this document that was prepared by this government and sent to us under a Freedom of Information yesterday, when she was told that the driver examiners would no longer reside in her district, she did an interview with CBC Radio, that I listened to yesterday afternoon at approximately 5:20. At the end of that interview that she did, the reporter came on and said: We are now going to speak to the Minister of Government Services and find out if what my colleague said was actually true. That is what he said: Now we are going to speak to the minister to find out if what the Member for Cartwright said was true.

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, if we are given information by the government and we go out and speak to that piece of information, and that piece of information is false, then it appears that the piece of information that was given to us that is false was deliberately given to us to mislead us, to besmirch our character in public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I will endeavor to have an answer for him before this day is over with. It is the first time in terms of - I wanted to see what he was referring to. He has given me a copy of that and he has also given me the letter that was sent. If he would allow me the opportunity, before this afternoon is out, I will certainly deal with this issue and to the points that the Leader of the NDP has made.

I want to say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, there is no deliberate attempt on anyone's part to besmirch you or anybody else in this House. You may take it -

MR. REID: How do I know that?

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Sir, you asked the question: How do you know that? I do not believe that you are out to besmirch me, as an hon. member, and I would hope that you would think that the members opposite are not out to besmirch you. If you believe that, there is not much I can do about that. I can only say to you that there is no deliberate attempt on behalf of anybody, on the government, to besmirch anybody's reputation. It almost bears not even talking about. However, seeing that you put it on the record, I need to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavor to have a look at what has been provided to me by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the NDP and we will have an answer for them before this House closes this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The issue of parliamentary privilege is indeed a very serious matter, and this Speaker tends to treat all points raised on parliamentary privilege as very serious issues that need to be addressed before the House.

In this particular matter, the role of Speaker is to decide whether or not there is a prima facie case for breach of privilege. The Speaker understands that when there are disputes between members as to the allegation of facts, that these matters do not, in themselves, necessarily constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. In other words, there may be different interpretations; however, the Speaker will take advice from the Officers of the House and will have consultations.

I do thank the hon. Government House Leader, because he has undertaken to be able to give a clarification, hopefully, before the day is out. The Speaker will come back and make a ruling whether this issue constitutes a prima facie case, hopefully, before the afternoon is out as well.

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

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

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to present the 2003 Annual Report for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, we feel it is very timely, given the federal election which is pending maybe within the next few days even, I would like to submit this motion for consideration, maybe at a Private Members' Day, and I will speak further after I read the motion in that regard.

WHEREAS there is an impending federal election and many federal-provincial issues need attention;

WHEREAS this Province should be the principal beneficiary of offshore resource revenue;

WHEREAS there is a need for improvements to the equalization program;

WHEREAS health and post-secondary funding from the federal government should be increased;

WHEREAS there is a need for improvements in the EI system;

WHEREAS the economy of this Province is suffering because the federal government is not willing to take custodial management over the stocks off our coasts;

WHEREAS the joint management of the fishery is an important issue for the future of this Province;

WHEREAS there is a role for the federal government to play in the development of the Lower Churchill;

WHEREAS there should be an increased federal presence in the Province; and

WHEREAS there should be continued operation and marketing of 5 Wing Goose Bay;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all-party committee of this House to draft a document for presentation and endorsement by all candidates in this Province, and the party leaders, in the upcoming federal election.

Mr. Speaker, we feel this is crucial in terms of timing and, albeit, it is being submitted as a private member's motion, we invite the government to exercise its prerogative at any time to debate this motion, even as an urgent issue, so that every person who has offered themselves for candidacy in this upcoming election can be required, once this policy is drafted, to address all of these issues and commit where they stand on them, irregardless of party stripe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I seek direction. Is it the Chair's understanding that this private member's motion will stand in the hon. member's name?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion? Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to present a petition on behalf of several residents of my district. The petition reads:

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

Ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay area hereby draw your attention to the lack of a safe means of transportation in the Riverhead-St. Mary's area.

WHEREAS it is the duty of government to provide proper transportation to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of where they live.

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government immediately put in place a plan to address this current serious situation.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present this petition of between 1,100 and 1,200 names on behalf of people in the great District of Placentia & St. Mary's. This petition has to do with the condition of the roads through the district, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the St. Mary's Bay area, according to this petition.

Yesterday, myself and the Minister of Transportation and Works had an opportunity to travel throughout the district to see first-hand the conditions of the roads and to make the minister fully aware of the situation that we have to deal with in the district. We had a public meeting in the Town of Riverhead, which encompassed many individuals, organizations and groups from St. Mary's Bay. We travelled out through the Cape Shore area and into Placentia, and finished up with a meeting with the Town Council in Placentia last night, mostly dealing with the roads and the emergency situation that we are dealing with in some cases, Mr. Speaker.

It is an opportunity, I guess, for the members of the community and the members of the district to bring forward their concerns in relation to the roads. The Minister of Transportation and Works accompanied me yesterday and certainly gave a great opportunity for the people in the district to voice their concerns and issues and to get some commitment that we would receive some funding for roads this year, once everything is put in place under the budgetary process. After spending the last decade, Mr. Speaker, not receiving the proper funding that was needed for roads, and certainly after seeing the maintenance budget of the former Department of Works, Services and Transportation cut, Mr. Speaker, a lot of the roads in my district are certainly in need of assistance.

With the petition today, we just want to further the cause, I guess, in getting the message across to the minister, and to the department, that we need money for roads in the district, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, after the meetings that we had yesterday, and certainly after the opportunity that the minister had to travel out to the district to see it first-hand, we look forward to, this year commencing, the first year of a multi-year plan addressing the roads in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and certainly with the commitment from the minister to do his utmost to address that financially, we look forward to safe road conditions being brought to the district, Mr. Speaker, over the next couple of years, and certainly to answer the questions and the concerns the people have as they relate to the petition here. While it all can't be done overnight and it can't be done in one year, we certainly look forward to being able to do that over the next couple of years, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, today, to present this petition on behalf of the people of my district, and look forward to the work that is not only needed but the work that will be done in the next couple of years as it relates to the roads in my district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 present a petition on behalf of the people of my district with regard to the Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, I won't read the prayer of the petition. I read a prayer yesterday and it is pretty much the same prayer. I will use the time to speak to this important issue, because it affects so many people in Labrador, so many people on the Northern Peninsula of the Island, and also on the West Coast of Newfoundland.

I can tell you, right now, that I have consulted with a great deal of groups and organizations that are playing an active leadership role in our communities, that are not in support of the decision that this government made. Mr. Speaker, I am going to list some of them for the record, because we have had letters of support and people going to the media and expressing their discontent with government's decision around marine services in Labrador from a number of organizations.

All the people I am about to list right now are organizations and groups that have a problem with the decision the government opposite made to base the Sir Robert Bond out of the Community of Lewisporte. Mr. Speaker, they don't agree with the additional expenditure that will accompany the move of that vessel to Lewisporte, nor do they agree with the quality of service that they will receive.

Mr. Speaker, we have had support for our position to base the ferry service between Cartwright and Goose Bay from the Nortip Development Corporation, the Straits and St. Barbe Chamber of Commerce, the St. Barbe Development Association, the Nordic Economic Development Corporation, the Greater Corner Brook Board of Trade, the Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the Viking Trail Tourism Association. In Labrador, we have had support from all municipalities in my district, the combined councils of Labrador, the Town of Labrador West, Labrador City - the Mayor of the Town of Labrador City was in the gallery today actually, a very strong proponent of this particular service staying in Labrador because he stands for what is right and proper for Labradorians - the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the combined councils of Labrador, the Chambers of Commerce in the West, in Central, in Southern and in the Straits, and also the Zonal boards and all the regions of Labrador, and the North Coast Transportation Committee.

Mr. Speaker, that is more that twenty groups and organizations in Western Newfoundland, the Northern Peninsula and Labrador that believes the government opposite has made the wrong decision, has created an unnecessary expenditure for their own selves and is leaving the people in Labrador with a less than adequate service.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I challenged the Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs in Estimates a few nights ago, to produce to me where they have support from leadership in Labrador on the West Coast and in the Northern Peninsula for the decision that they made. Mr. Speaker, he could not table it because it does not exist. The only support to put the Sir Robert Bond in Lewisporte came out of the ministers own district. It came out of him, himself, as the acting minister at the table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will have noticed, in the last few minutes we have had another school group that has joined us in the galleries. The Speaker would like to welcome a number of students from St. Joseph's All-Grade School in Terrenceville, in the District of Bellevue, twenty-two students with teachers: Darrell Sneyd and Paul Watson; chaperone, Sheila Cox, and bus driver, Randy Vaslett. I am sure all members would like to welcome these students from Terrenceville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On petitions, the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present this petition:

WHEREAS parents and students in Carbonear do not want to have their school close and unnecessarily bus students to Harbour Grace; and

WHEREAS existing school boards now cease to exist; and

WHEREAS a decision to close St. Mary's primary school in St. John's has been reversed; and

WHEREAS a new school in Carbonear is necessary;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to reverse the decision of the Avalon West School Board to close St. Joseph's school in Carbonear, reverse the decision to bus students and commit funds to construct a new school in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, I stand again - I am not sure how many times I have done this now, and I am going to keep doing it because the petitions keep coming in.

Mr. Speaker, with the new school boards now in place, appointed by the government, I think it is only fair that the residents of Carbonear and the students of Carbonear be given the same opportunity and the same advantage as the parents and students of St. Mary's primary in St. John's have received.

Shortly after the decision was made to reverse the decision at St. Mary's, the people in Carbonear - students and parents met, and their committee met. They had a giant motorcade a couple of weeks ago. They have had meetings almost every week, frustrated by no response and not getting any compromise from the government. I ask the minister again today if he would listen to the parents and students of Carbonear and take St. Joseph's and put in on hold - the decision to close it - and give the new school board, the one for the Avalon, an opportunity to reappraise the situation and just see if the move that was done by the last school board is certainly appropriate for what the intent or action plan of the new school board will be.

That is not too much to ask for, Mr. Speaker. When you look at a school that has been there - it has been written up, the program at St. Joseph's in Carbonear. The principal there has been recognized nationally as the principal of the year. Her programs are very good. They are used as role models across this country. The whole concept at St. Joseph's is totally different from a lot of other schools in this Province, and taking all of this now and scraping it to the point where school's situations in this Province is being reevaluated. It seems totally unfair.

Again, last night the committee met and a number of parents showed up. They have informed me today that they have a lawyer now in place who is going to look at taking legal action against the appropriate body - whether it be the government or whether it be against the school board - to stop this decision. One of the reasons they are going to use, of course, is what I have spoken about here for a number of times, is that it is simply not ready. We are going to take students now and send them to St. Francis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave to conclude?

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: How many seconds are you looking for?

MR. SWEENEY: Just enough to -

MR. E. BYRNE: Go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, would he look at this situation again, talk to the new school board and ask them to give the parents another hearing?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting this petition today on behalf of the residents of New Harbour and surrounding areas.

The petition is titled: A petition concerning unsafe disposal of electrical transformers containing PCBs. The petition reads, in part, as follows:

We, the undersigned residents of New Harbour and surrounding areas, draw the attention of the House to the following: That New Harbour and Hopeall, Trinity Bay residents were unduly exposed to the dangers of unsafe disposal of electrical transformers containing PCBs. Under funding by the federal government, the provincial Newfoundland and Labrador government was entrusted to remove transformers containing PCBs from the Makinsons site to Come By Chance.

Regulations pertaining to the storage of PCB material requires anyone who owns, controls, or possesses PCB material to maintain control over entry to the storage site; store PCB materials in a specified container and in a specified manner; make stored equipment and containers accessible for inspection; protect stored equipment; have fire protection and emergency plans and cleanup procedures; and provide the specified fire alarms, fire suppression systems, fire extinguishers and cleanup materials.

In 1988, immediately after the PCB fire of 1988, the federal government enacted strict PCB (inaudible) storage facilities. Destruction facilities were to be sited in several regions of the country and facilities would not be imposed on the communities. The New Harbour-Trinity Bay dump site is not designated by the government as a PCB waste disposal facility;

THEREFORE your petitioners call upon government to protect our residents and future generations by taking the following actions: 1. A Public Inquiry into the disposal of PCB contaminated transformers at the New Harbour-Trinity Bay dump site; 2. Seal off the affected area; 3. Commence through testing for contamination; and 4. Inform residents of health risks they may be been exposed to.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I have met on several occasions - I have attended several public meetings in the New Harbour and surrounding areas. I will say that I have spoken to the minister, and both the Minister of Environment and Conservation and myself are both committed to working with the newly formed committee there.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Motion 3, To Move that the House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Guaranteeing of Certain Loans under The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 15)

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 on Bill 15.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on said bill, Bill 15?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Continuation of the debate on Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to speak on Bill 15 today, for a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I am going to start by first of all talking a little about some of the issues that transpired during Question Period with regard to driver examiners. When I obtained this document from the Executive Council of government, and I obtained it on May 7, I believe, when I obtained the document, the document was dated, very specifically, March 30, 2004.

Mr. Chairman, I had a chance to look through it and I was quite surprised when I did, because when I looked at the document it indicated to me quite clearly that driver examinations would no longer be provided in my district.

I am going to read for the record exactly what it did say. It said that driver examinations will no longer be provided at Forteau, Port Hope Simpson and Cartwright - which were three of the locations where this service was being done currently - and persons wishing to take driver exams must travel to a permanent office site, the closest being in Flower's Cove

Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised when I saw that because anyone who understands the geographics of my particular district would certainly not make such an expectation or ask people in the region to do such a thing, because it clearly makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that they would be able to avail of this service in any fashion that was acceptable at all, and I was surprised.

When I approached the minister yesterday, after the House of Assembly closed, to indicate to her that I had received this and was not happy with it, she said to me that she was not aware of this issue until it was raised in the House of Assembly by the Member for Labrador West. I was very surprised at that, because it was her particular department. She was the minister. The document came from government, the Executive Council of government, so one would think that when you ask for information under the Freedom of Information request that you would indeed get accurate, updated, factual information, and that you would accept it as being such. Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised when the minister said that she was not aware of it, that she had consulted with her deputy and that it was, indeed, not a final decision and that she would take a look at it.

I am pleased today to learn by the acting minister, the Minister of Environment in the House today, that my district will not see any erosion of services with regard to driver examinations, and the fact that they will still be accessible. What I have not yet found out, Mr. Chairman, is how that service will be delivered, because there were two options for delivery in my particular district. For those members who do not know - I know that the minister did not know until I informed her yesterday - the airport operators in my district, who are employees of Transportation and Works, were given the responsibility to administer driver examinations, and they were trained to do so. They provided that service right through the airport terminals in the respective communities in which they were working and operating.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, we had a driver examiner who would come into the area from the Northern Peninsula - maybe from the Flower's Cove office, I am not entirely sure, but from the Northern Peninsula - two and three times a year. They would come into the area, spend a few days, do the driver exams and so on, especially in the Labrador Straits area. So, I am still not clear as to what option of delivery will be used for this service in my district: if it will be used by driver examiners coming in, or if it will be done through airport operators who were originally trained to be able to handle that responsibility. Maybe we will get those answers more clearly in the days to come, but I have to say that the fact that service is being restored is good and I would suggest in the future that government ensure that information that is not factual and not correct, as they say, is not released to the Opposition or to any other people, Mr. Chairman, because when you pick up a document, an official document like this, and you look at it, you indeed look at it to be factual, to be the truth, and certainly would carry forward on that front, as I did yesterday. I am learning now that the minister was not aware of it and that indeed the information was not correct.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention something else, because earlier today, before I came into the House of Assembly, I did get a Ministerial Statement from the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. The statement was congratulating the group in Labrador West on opening their new facility, their new shelter. I know they had their official opening up there yesterday, Mr. Chairman, because I know a lot of the people who attended the official opening yesterday in Labrador West. I was not able to attend myself - I wish that I could have - but I was not, and I was surprised when she did not make the statement. Because they did have their opening yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge that this is a great shelter. It is a good shelter for women in that area, and for children, who are escaping from family abuse and violence within their home environment. It is a very safe haven for them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the people in Labrador West, people like Jackie Winters and Frances Fry and Janice Barrens-Gallant and many others I could name, Patsy Ralph, Dianne Gear, Edwina Brenton, I believe it is, on the committee, because they did do a lot of work on this project. I met with them a number of times over the years. Mr. Chairman, I was very happy, very proud, to be part of the Liberal government at the time when we did commit over $100,000 to this project to ensure that this family violence shelter was done in Labrador West, and partnered with the federal government, my colleague, the MP for Labrador, to ensure that this project did get fulfilled and did get done.

I also had the opportunity at that time to visit the old centre that was there, so I know the keen lobby efforts that these people put in. I guess I wonder why the minister did not proceed with her statement today. The centre, I know, has been open since December, and they did have their official opening yesterday, but after the actions that she took only a few days ago in this House to close down twenty HRE offices in this Province, I can understand why she did not want to get up and start touting about the great initiatives that other women in this Province are doing in their respective areas to try and move forward the women's agenda, the children's agenda, in trying to counteract the poverty and other issues that these people are faced with on a regular basis.

Mr. Chairman, I heard Joyce Hancock, the President of the Status of Women for the Province, a very renowned woman who has championed the issues of the women's movement for a lot of years in this Province. I remember back in the days when I was attending college out in Stephenville and she was very active in those days - it was quite some time ago now - as a local member of the Stephenville Status of Women's Council. Mr. Chairman, I heard her on the news last night and I will not forget the comments that she made when she was talking about the minister's decision, the government's decision, to close twenty HRE offices in this Province. She was quite clear in her comments when she said that poverty has a face. Poverty does have face. She said that by closing these offices, government does not have to look at the faces of poverty that come to their door.

I tell you, this is a woman who knows what she is talking about. This is a woman who had committed her life to working towards the cause for women who find themselves in poverty. This is a woman who does not say things for the sake of saying them. She says them because they are truthful, because they are heartfelt, and because she means what she says.

Mr. Chairman, I will not forget her comments because I believe her comments to be accurate, to be true. I believe that when you are far enough removed from a situation, that you do not have to see it on a day-to-day basis, you do not have to live in it, you do not have to live around it, then you soon forget the impoverished conditions that other people in this Province are sometimes faced with. This is from a woman who does not forget, Mr. Chairman. This is from a woman who deals with these issues on a day-to-day basis. She sees the serious impact that closing these twenty HRE offices will have on some of the lowest paid, some of the poorest, families within our society.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has lapsed.

MS JONES: May I have a few minutes just to clue up my comments, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

I just wanted to indicate that today, and I am sure there will be other opportunities for me to stand and speak to a number of issues in this House, some that more directly pertain to my own district, Mr. Chairman. Today, I certainly wanted to highlight the situation and the circumstance that has been created for low-income families and families who are dependent upon the services that are provided by government through Human Resources employment offices, and how their situations, right now, will be even more challenging and they will have even more barriers, Mr. Chairman, posed to them as they try and make their way through this society that we live in.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate a few moments to speak regarding Bill 15, which of course deals with municipalities in our Province, i.e. loan guarantees, specifically, for those municipalities. I thought the Leader of the Opposition gave a very good explanation yesterday as to exactly how these loan guarantees work. I am sure there are a lot of people in the House who were not familiar with how they worked, and how important they are, indeed, to municipalities.

Speaking of municipalities - because under Bill 15, which is a budget type bill, of course, you can address your comments to anything of a budgetary type concern - I would like to have a few comments regarding the issue of rural development in these municipalities.

We have heard a lot of talk from this new Administration, pre-election, during the election and since the election, throne speeches, blue books and budgets, about what they intend to do for rural development. I say, in an unkind yet truthful way, that we are not talking rural development from this Administration, we are talking about rural devastation - rural devastation! - and there is no question about it.

We already had the Premier talking about, the one shoe is dropped on the budget, and I call it the one boot. We know exactly where he planted that, in the backside of unionism in this Province. The second shoe, he said, was about to drop. Well, no doubt, he has dropped the second boot this week. We heard nothing but bad news and devastation for rural Newfoundland from this Administration.

Just look at my own district of Burgeo & LaPoile. In the past two days, we have the Government Service driver examiner operations in Burgeo gone, we have HRE offices in Burgeo gone. Forget about the cost that everyone on the South Coast of this Province now has to incur to go from Grey River, François, Ramea, Burgeo, to get up to Stephenville, if they have to deal with an HRE problem. These people are generally low-income people who probably are receiving HRE assistance. What do we do now? We compound the problem. If you want to see a face, if you want to talk to someone, you either try to use a computer, or a mechanized machine, if you have one available to you, or somehow, some way, get yourself to Stephenville at some cost to get that service provided to you. That is what is happening in Burgeo alone, and you call this economic development for rural Newfoundland; no doubt about it.

Port aux Basques, the weigh scales: 80,000-plus vehicles a year go through Port aux Basques. Forget about the first 268 kilometres that you travel on the highway from the Port aux Basques Ferry Terminal to Pynn's Brook. Forget about that. That is not a safety issue. We will get them when they get to Pynn's Brook. We will see then if they have any truck problems. We will see then if they are overweight. We will see then if they have problems with how their weight is packaged and chained down or nor chained down. We will see then how their tires are. We will check it out after we let them roll 270 kilometres down the highway, 25 per cent of the way. So, it is not only having an impact from employment of the employees who got the boot yesterday; it is the 500,000-plus people who live in this Province who got the boot when it comes to safety on the TCH. It is the 400,000 visitors who come here each year through tourism, who got the boot when it comes to safety, because this government is more anxious to cut off its nose to spite its face, is trying to save a few measly dollars and compromise the lives and safety of people.

Who is going to answer for the people and their families when we have devastation on our highways? How many bodies does it take, or injuries does it take, for this government to realize that they made a foolish decision? Yes, we talk about rural development, no doubt about it.

For example, we even have a Premier - we have raised the issue here. The Premier who has it, as one of his planks in his platform, that we are going to be the salvation of rural Newfoundland. Must do it. Yet, he creates a new Department of Business, makes himself the Minister of Business, and does not have the intestinal fortitude to show up to answer questions at the very committee of which his department is going to be examined. What is the problem, Premier? Are you afraid to appear before the people of this Province in an Estimates Committee and answer for your gem, your jewel, or is this another blank promise that we have?

We have seen a lot of commitments made in the Blue Book and in the Throne Speech. Have we seen any of the commitments fulfilled? We saw the fulfillment by the creation of the Business Department, and the Premier had press releases issued and everything out touting the creation of this new Business Department, but where is the Premier when the time comes to sit down in this House and explain to the people of this Province, through the Opposition, who have a legitimate bona fide right to ask him what this department is all about? Where is he? He cannot make it. We say: No, don't worry. We can make time available. We will come here any time of the day or night, Mr. Premier, to let you answer for your wishes, your department. No, the Premier is not going to appear. What cowardice, I say. What cowardice, when the Premier of this Province will not appear before an Estimates Committee of this House to answer legitimate questions from a legitimate and Official Opposition of this Province. It cannot be anything other than it. Give a reason why you cannot. The time is yours to call: noon, daylight, morning hours, Monday through Monday we are here if you want to come, Mr. Premier, and answer for what you have created - but, no, we do not see him.

I say to the Premier and I say to this government, practice what you preach. If you are going to talk about rural development, if you are going to create special departments to do rural development, if you are going to create the Department of Business - and did not want to, for whatever reason, leave it to the control of Minister Dunderdale, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. He did not want to leave it to that minister. He carved it out so he, himself, could carry the weight and the burden and the responsibility of that department. A part of that responsibility, I say, is that the Premier should answer for what the department is all about.

The Minister of ITRD, herself, who is going to appear tonight now, apparently, at this 7:00 p.m. meeting, said herself, yesterday, in her Estimate Committee: Don't ask me any questions about the Business Department because that is the Premier's bailiwick and I don't know the answers.

She did not know the answers yesterday for anything for the Department of Business, and we get told today that the same minister, who says, I know nothing about the Department of Business, is going to appear tonight at an Estimates Committee and tell the people of this Province all about the details of the new Department of Business, which is the responsibility of the Premier.

Maybe she is a quick study, and I do not deny that, maybe she is a very quick study, or maybe there is not too much to learn about this Department of Business yet. Maybe it is just a shell game. We have a department created, money put in the Budget for it, but nobody knows what it is all about yet. Maybe that is the truth of the situation. Maybe the Department of Business has no mandate, has no terms, conditions and ideas yet. If that is the case, tell us. Tell us. For God's sake, tell the people of this Province what this department is all about.

The Minister of Finance, who stood on his feet yesterday here and tried to answer for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and tried to answer for the Minister of HRE, admitted at the end of the bluff period that he did not know the answers, did not know the details. For God's sake, this government, if you are going to foist upon the people of this Province the boots, which has been done - and that is all we have seen done since this Budget got dropped in March - have the courage to tell the people. Do not hide behind fake conditions - for example, I cannot appear. Why can't you appear? There is no reason you cannot.

It also leaves me to comment about the fees. I cannot go by without talking about the fees to the municipalities in rural Newfoundland. I mentioned the other night about Steve Mackenzie, an ambulance operator in my district, a former candidate against me, actually, for the Progressive Conservative Party in the last election, who is very upset with this Administration now because of the ambulance fee piece. Another convert called me yesterday. In fact, I said: Can I use your name? He said: You can definitely use my name in the House of Assembly, because I know the Government House Leader. I know him personally, and I know the Premier personally. In fact, he was the candidate against me in the 1999 election. His name is Greg Sheaves, and he said: I am livid. I supported a party that was supposed to be for rural Newfoundland, supposed to be doing something for the businesses of this Province, made all kinds of promises to me, and here I am now - he is in the construction business - I get my quarry permit, and every quarry permit that I get has gone up by $50, every one. He has four. He used to pay $1,600 a year, and now he is paying $1, 800; and, he said, they did it under the guise of calling it a processing fee. Well, he said, that is funny, because they processed it last year for $1, 600 and now it takes them an extra $200 this year to process it. There is no difference in the paper, no difference in the time it takes them to do it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. I shall be back.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to rise for a few minutes to speak on the bill before the House, Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

In doing so, Mr. Chairman, I have had a look at the legislation and I have looked at - well, it is really an amendment to the Local Authority Guarantee Act by adding a whole series of loans to the statement, to the schedule of that act, and it totals a large number of municipalities in the Province, each of whom have borrowed an additional amount of money, according to the note, adding to the loans and guarantees that were issued during the period October 16, 2001 to January 14, 2004.

As one can see from looking through the many pages of the act, I think the total number of pages is fifty-one pages of loan guarantees, which turn out to be quite a considerable - they are not totalled, Mr. Chairman. There is no total here, and I did not hear the minister, in addressing the bill, indicate what the total amounts are.

It seems to me, when you look at that bill, and at the same time - and I hope the Minister of Finance is paying some attention. I know he is engaged at the moment. In the document prepared by the Executive Council, which has been passed out to the Opposition, upon request of the Official Opposition, there is a district by district breakdown of the contributions to each electoral district of the Province, and it is done throughout the Province. I am looking right now at Ferryland District, for example. I see that, in addition to the contributions or the different changes that would happen in a particular district - and we have been through some of them over the last few days. The Member for Labrador West quite rightly pointed out a difficulty in his own district with the announcement made in the Budget documents that the driver examinations would no longer be conducted in Labrador West and that drivers would have to travel, drivers seeking examination would have to travel, to the nearest permanent office, in that case Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That is one decision that was contained in this document.

The result of that, of course, was that the Member for Labrador West brought it to the attention of the minister, brought to the attention of the minister the difficulties that would bring about, the illogic of such a decision, that someone would have to drive 600 kilometres to get a driver's test, and drive 600 kilometres back. The minister, quite rightly, agreed that the matter would be reviewed and that it would be changed. In fact, since that question was raised in the House by the Member for Labrador West, the decision of the minister was changed and no longer will be put into effect. We are very pleased to see that the minister has the ability and willingness to change a decision that was clearly wrong.

That is the document that I am referring to, Mr. Chairman, the document that was released, called Budget Details and Statistics 2004-2005. What I would hope the Minister of Finance would address is the apparent anomaly between municipalities of one kind or another, even within districts, where there is something in addition to the Municipal Operating Grant that is given to municipalities by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. There is another item called the Debt Servicing Subsidy, and I note that Ferryland, for example, which has a Municipal Operating Grant of only $28,000, has a Debt Servicing Subsidy of $180,000 - nearly $181,000 - and yet another municipality, such as Bay Bulls, has a Municipal Operating Grant of $40,000 and a Debt Servicing Subsidy of only $8,900. There does not appear to be any rhyme nor reason between one municipality and another in terms of the amount of municipal grant or what apparently would be the amount or level of support that a town or municipality is deserving from the provincial government in terms of the Municipal Operating Grants and the level of the Debt Servicing Subsidy supplied by this government.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if perhaps the Minister of Finance can address that, if he will do so. The document that I have before me indicates that the debt servicing subsidy is the provincial contribution to municipal infrastructure debt servicing payments. These are payments that are made, in fact, by the Province against the debt of a particular municipality. I know this is a program that has been put into effect from time to time to support municipalities who have difficulty in paying their debt. The question, I guess, is: On what basis is the decision made between one municipality and another? Because it appears, when you look at these two items being totalled in this document here, there would be significant anomalies between municipalities in terms of the level of support by government when you add the Municipal Operating Grant and the Debt Servicing Subsidy together. I know there are formulas for the Municipal Operating Grant. I wonder if there is equally a formula for the Debt Servicing Subsidy, and which municipalities are entitled to it and which are not, and how these decisions are made, and if the minister could disclose that formula.

We do know, of course, that many of our problems in supporting municipalities, particularly in trying to ensure fairness for an infrastructure program such as has been offered by the federal government from time to time, is that in this Province many municipalities cannot participate at all, if you had the formula that the federal government initially started off with, a one-third, one-third, one-third contribution with respect to municipal infrastructure with federal government participation, so I understand that obviously many municipalities in the Province have to get more support than that if they are going to participate at all.

I would like to know what is going to happen here in terms of this provincial Debt Servicing Subsidy, how it operates, and whether this government plans to continue to operate in the same way or bring about changes in that.

Coming to the federal government, I would say that I was heartened to hear the proposal by the Opposition House Leader today read into the record as a motion, a private member's resolution, after listing a number of issues that we expect and need support from the federal government in relation to, whether it be changes to the EI system, making sure we are the principal beneficiary of our offshore resource revenue, ensuring that there ought to be an increased federal presence in the Province, and suggesting that we have an all-party committee in this House draw up a policy document for presentation, and hopefully endorsement by all candidates in this Province and by the party leaders in the upcoming federal election. This is something that seems to me to be a good idea, Mr. Chairman, that we have quite a few things that there are not partisan differences on, in relation to what this Province needs from the Government of Canada. We do have our, obviously, political differences here in this Province and nationally, and are supporters of various parties, but what we do need to present at a certain point is a united front on issues that are of great significance to Newfoundland and Labrador, that we can have all-party attention directed to. We have had some examples of that in the past in this House when we were dealing with issues such as the change in the education, the Constitution on the Education Act, in support for a successor to the TAGS program, in support for the sealing industry, where we had all-party efforts to influence the Government of Canada on particular issues, and this seems to one where we can do the same thing. You know, we have already had the Premier writing letters to the people seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party, Belinda Stronach for one.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, for a moment, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Belinda Stronach, Tony Clement and Stephen Harper were sent letters by the Premier, asking them their opinion on a number of points. The letter was sent by mistake to Jack Layton, asking him what he would do as Conservative Leader. It was eventually corrected by suggesting that the Leader of the New Democratic Party was asked to answer certain questions in relation to our national Party's policy on issues of importance to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think the idea of having a manifesto of sorts comes from an all-party committee of this House on what we, as legislators in Newfoundland and Labrador, think are the most significant issues for this Province in relation to the upcoming federal election and in relation to the kind of things that we would expect a new Government of Canada, whether it be a majority government or whether it be a minority government, to do. This may, in fact, be an effective tool to advance the cause of Newfoundland and Labrador by showing a united front to the Parliament of Canada and to the new Government of Canada on the issues that are of great importance to us.

I would endorse that, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge the Government House Leader to consider that as a priority resolution. I do not know if it could be passed this afternoon, if there is enough time to consider it, but certainly next week, particularly if it is on the eve of a federal election, might be a good time to put this piece of work in place. It would not have to be a terribly long committee. The elements are set out here. They have been set out in a letter from the Premier to various individuals. There are others that may be added to it. I think it can be done in a relatively quick and speedy manner. It could be of great benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the federal election approaches and as election day approaches, to know that there is some sense of unanimity at the provincial legislative level. Those are the kinds of things that ought to be done, that are of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: My colleague from Twillingate & Fogo there is getting rather anxious, but his time will come.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am standing today to speak to Bill 15. Obviously, it is a bill that talks about the loan guarantees for those communities throughout the Province. I know, in my district, in the District of Grand Bank, there are, in fact, about seventeen communities altogether. Some, of course, are local district associations, but the others are incorporated communities. When I look down through the list, of course, I see among the towns listed the Town of Grand Bank. Grand Bank happens to be my home town. I have to stand today and say that it is one of the better managed, better run, communities that I know of in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have always been very cost-conscious, always managed their finances well, and always responded to the needs of the residents of Grand Bank according to the best of their ability.

As I stand here today, I can only think about how that community is trying to adjust to the very bleak news they have received since the PC Government was elected. They have been hit time and time and time again, for whatever reason. When I look at the Town of Grand Bank, I have no explanation to give them as to why they are being treated in the manner in which they are.

First they lost the health care centre, the new health care facility that was committed, that, in fact, was started to be built, the foundation laid, all the foundation work done, the steel erected. Today, we know that this government, the PC Government, has gone to tender looking for a contractor to tender on not only taking down the steel but on burying the foundation work. Of course, in doing that, Mr. Chair, it means they make it virtually impossible for anyone else, a future government, who would want to continue with this most worthwhile initiative, it makes it virtually impossible for them to do it without incurring additional significant cost.

We have the Blue Crest Seniors Home in Grand Bank, that was built to care for residents at Level I, Level II; residents who required very little care, which today, has changed. Today they care for residents who require Level III, Level IV acute care. So, anyone with any commonsense would tell you that a facility that was built to care for residents who needed Level I and Level II care, cannot care in the manner in which it should for those who need Level III and Level IV care.

I think about the employees, the public sector employees, who work so hard on behalf of the residents who live at the Blue Crest Seniors Home. They work so hard under very difficult, trying circumstances because for those of you who are not familiar, the rooms in the existing Blue Crest Seniors Home today accommodate two residents. It is very difficult with the size of the room to be able to manoeuver the residents around in safety. I think about the employees, I think about the residents, but you know, I really think about the community and the devastating impact it is having on the morale of the people in Grand Bank. And not just Grand Bank, because there are people from all over the Burin Peninsula who in fact live at the Blue Crest Seniors Home.

The clinic that was to be a part of that new health care facility right now is housed in what is an old Cottage Hospital. The only one remaining in the Province. It is dilapidated. It is not safe. It really needs to be replaced, and this was the opportunity. This is what they were all looking forward to, a new clinic where we have people from throughout my district to use it, and the new Blue Crest Seniors Home. As part of that, there was to be this wonderful pilot project for Alzheimer's patients. But, we know only too well how this government views the need to care and protect our Alzheimer's patients. When you look at the fact that they have not even approved the drug for Alzheimer's patients. The one that would have such a wonderful - mean such a difference if they were able to avail of it.

The Town of Grand Bank, the wonderful community of Grand Bank, historic community of Grand Bank, what a serious blow when they lost the new health care facility. On top of that, they have lost their HRE office, gone. The office, again, that was servicing my constituents, which was in Grand Bank. The second blow to that historic community. They have lost that office; employees laid off, gone. I am sure some of them may be able to bump, but you know what happens when you bump? At the end of the day someone else gets laid off. No one likes to be put in a position of forcing someone else out of a job. All of my constituents who utilize that office will now have to deal with the office in Marystown.

The new health care facility is cancelled. The HRE office is closed. Of course, the other impact that this Budget has had on Grand Bank is taking away the ability for people in the area to take their driver examinations in Grand Bank. Not only in Grand Bank, but St. Lawrence. Two communities in my district, in the District of Grand Bank where people could go to take their driver examinations, they will no longer be able to do it. They will now have to do that in Marystown.

What does that tell you about a government who professes to be interested in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who keep telling us they are not interested in centralizing services to the people of our Province? Well, your actions speak loudly and tell quite a different story. You have no interest in ensuring that those vibrant communities, vibrant because of the services they are able to provide for their people, vibrant because of new infrastructure that was going to take place there, vibrant because people were feeling good about themselves. What has happened? You have destroyed the morale of the people in the District of Grand Bank, for whatever reason I will never understand. All I do know is that people are lamenting the fact that they now have to deal with a PC government for the next four years. Those four years are not going to be easy years, and they know that.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: If the Member for Trinity North wants to speak to me I suggest he stand on his feet, because don't you talk about leaving. It is the Member for Trinity North who sat with us in a Liberal caucus for eight months while he was negotiating about crossing the floor to be with the Progressive Conservative Party, at a time whenever we discussed confidential matters he was part of those confidential discussions and at the same time carrying on a discussion with the PC members at the time. So don't talk to me, the Member for Trinity North, about trust and leaving. We know only too well that whatever I did, I did upfront. What you did, you did through the backdoor.

That is a waste of my time, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - because I never thought I would waste my time and my breath on speaking in response to the Member for Trinity North.

Let me talk about communities. Let me talk about volunteers. Let me talk about those communities that are trying so hard to survive in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the closure of the HRE office and what that means to Grand Bank, to the community of Grand Bank. I quote the mayor, Mayor Rex Matthews, who views the closure of the office as disrespectful. Our mayors, by and large the majority of them, are volunteers. How do you expect to continue to entice people to volunteer and be involved in their communities when you take actions like this that make it virtually impossible for them to be able to carry on, keep a community healthy, keep a community viable, when they are always having to deal with such disastrous decisions being taken by this government?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Ten minutes does not seem to last very long, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the time.

Just let me conclude by saying, I would hope that there would be some commonsense applied by the PC government and that some reconsideration would take place, especially with respect to the new health care facility, because I am fearful that when the contractor goes in to try and take down the steel and bury the foundation that they are going to be met by a group of people who are very upset and distraught over the decision taken by the PC government.

Thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I would ask that members to my left allow members speaking in the House to be heard. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing members speak. I ask that you keep your noise levels down, and any conversations might be taken outside the Chamber. Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for getting the order back in the House this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, as well, speak to Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957. As many speakers here this afternoon talked about, this is a bill pertaining to loan guarantees that municipalities around the Province have had from government. Our leader yesterday explained it well, these are not just loan guarantees, they are loans. The reason these guarantees are on the books is because the government, under law, requires that any municipality in the Province that goes to a bank or a lending institution to get a loan, before that loan can be had the government has to co-sign it. That is a condition that government puts on these loans and not the communities. There are communities out there that would not need to have that loan signed or guaranteed by the government but under law they have to.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of communitites out there who have that loan guarantee, it has never been exercised. The government has never had to pay out on these loans in the past because they have always managed to raise enough taxes within their communities to pay the loans that they have had.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of this, what we have seen in the House since this Budget came down in the past month, I think that it is going to be increasingly difficult for smaller municipalities, especially those in rural Newfoundland, to repay the loans they currently have with the banks around the Province because of what this government is doing to the economies of these rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, while some opposite might not think the cuts that the government has initiated in the last week or two will have an impact on these communities ability to raise taxes, I think they are sadly mistaken. I will give you a few examples, in a few short minutes, of how these cuts that the government is now out there making will impact the bottom line for municipalities in their ability to raise taxes to pay off the loans that they do indeed have with the financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we heard from this government, prior to getting elected, was that there would be no cuts to the civil service, and that was changed later to no massive cuts. What we actually have seen is that people were misled on both accounts because there are massive layoffs. In fact, the Premier and the Finance Minister have announced that there are going to be 4,000 government employees laid off around this Province in the next four years, and that will certainly have an impact on communities in my district to raise taxes to pay the loans that they currently have.

For example, in my district, besides the civil servants - those who work with the highways department and those who work in government buildings - we also have 475 teachers going in the next two years around the Province, most of whom will come from rural communities. When you take a teaching position - as my colleague from Marystown must know - out of the community it has a number of affects, one being you no longer have the tax base in that community. When a teacher goes he often will up and leave the area, and probably leave the Province. In so doing, he will no longer be paying property taxes. He will no longer be making purchases at the local stores, and he will also be taking his family with him. Obviously, it will decrease the tax base. The other thing that you lose in a community when you lose a teacher, Mr. Chairman, is you lose a valued volunteer, because if you check within any community in this Province you will find that there are a number of teachers who actively participate in the volunteer bodies. So these are two reasons why they should not be laying off teachers in our Province.

The other thing that has happened in my district in the last couple of days is that they have closed an HRE office in the Town of Fogo. While there are only two employees in that office, they are still two employees who are earning an income and trying to support their families. It is quite possible that these two individuals, along with their families, may have to leave Fogo Island. That is obviously going to have an impact on the budgets of the communities there, but it is also going to have a direct impact on the Town of Fogo because that is where the office is located. I was informed by the town clerk there yesterday that the town does indeed collect taxes from the HRE office. So already they have lost a part of their budget for this year.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing about it is that usually if businesses - as the Minister for Innovation, Trade and Rural Development told me in an Estimates meeting yesterday, that they are trying to encourage businesses to go into rural areas of the Province. If there is any business looking to set up in rural areas they try to look for those communities which provide the services like schools, hospitals and other facilities for their employees. I was very disturbed to learn, a day or two after the Budget came out, that a brand new hospital facility which was planned and built on Fogo Island, instead of opening twenty beds there, now we will only be opening ten. That is obviously not only going to have an impact on drawing people to the area but it is also going to have an impact on employment. Obviously, there will not be as many people employed in the new health care facility in the center of Fogo Island with ten beds as there would have been with twenty.

We were informed by a document that was sent to us yesterday by Executive Council, which happens to fall under the Premier's department, I think. The Clerk of Executive Council is the chief civil servant for the Province. They sent us a document outlining what we will get for each of our districts this year. It has been common in the past that you would receive these on Budget Day, but this year, for some reason, we were not given a copy of this document. We had to file an application under the Freedom of Information Act. Some thirty-odd days later we received this document telling us what is going to be in our district. I guess, more to the point, in this particular document it is not what is going to be in my district of Twillingate & Fogo, but what is not going to be in it because of the cuts that this government is implementing this year.

I am very surprised to see that the service of a driver examiner, who normally comes to Fogo Island, Twillingate Island, Change Islands and New World Island will no longer be coming. Therefore, the residents of those four islands will now have to travel to Lewisporte, which happens to be in the Minister of Transportation's district in Lewisporte. I guess, besides taking the ferry out of Cartwright and putting it into Lewisporte, he is also taking the driver examination people and putting them in there as well and telling them not to ever go to Fogo Island, not to ever go to Change Islands, Twillingate Island or New World Island.

The unfortunate thing about that, Mr. Chairman, is that in order for a student driver now to be examined and get his licence on Fogo Island or Change Islands - especially this time of the year where they are cut to three trips a day - they have to get up bright and early and go on the ferry, travel to Lewisporte, and hopefully, do the test, get the licence, come back and catch the last boat in the afternoon, which happens to be at 3:30 p.m. at this time of the year. Even if they were able to do this, what they are hit with then is an increase in ferry rates; an increase of 25 per cent or 26.7 per cent over the next four years. That was also very much of a surprise to learn, especially in light of the fact that the Premier told the people of Fogo Island, on a number of occasions, that in fact he was going to eliminate ferry rates.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we talk about communities and their abilities to raise taxes. My fear is that in the coming few years, under this Tory reign, that - I say reign rather than govern because the Kings of Old England reigned, they ruled. We hear the Premier saying, instead of govern: I control, I rule. So, it is a different form of government than what we have been used to. It is my fear that in the next four years we are going to see so many cuts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that the people will not be there because they will have so many services cut to them that they will move elsewhere. I think that is the major plan, not only from the Premier but the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, Mr. Doug House, because I think in their Blue Book they have a plan that the only communities that are going to survive in this Province are the centres along the Trans-Canada Highway. That is very unfortunate for districts like mine. I will fight it, and every soul in my district will also fight it. So to think that you are going to do it easily, you are sadly mistaken.

Mr. Chairman, we just recently experienced a disaster on the west and northwest coast in the last few weeks. Because of huge windstorms the lobster fishermen and women of that area have had all their pots destroyed. I brought this issue up in Question Period today. You might ask: What does this have to do with municipalities? Well, it has a lot to do with municipalities if the inhabitants of those communities pay taxes to the towns and the municipalities in the area.

I brought the issue up with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs this afternoon in the House of Assembly, asking him if he had contacted the federal government to try and get some assistance to help these individuals get some pots back in the water before this fishing season is lost. The answer I got was that he had been talking to Ottawa and that it did not look like there was any money forthcoming. I also asked him: If the money is not coming from Ottawa, why wouldn't the provincial government put their own relief program in place to help these people? Because if he does not, Mr. Chairman, these individuals will not qualify for EI this year. They will either have to move or the government will have to give them some other form of assistance, whether it be through an outright make-work program or through social assistance. I think when I asked the minister if he was going to do something, it was a legitimate question and his answer was: No, we do not have a program for that under the provincial government nor do we have the money for that program under the provincial government.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has elapsed.

MR. REID: Can I just - on a point of explanation for the members here in the House - make a point, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: I think they would like to know, that I just spoke with the federal member for the district, and even though he thought this morning himself there were no monies available from Ottawa, he just called to inform me that indeed the residents of that area who were affected by this wind storm can apply under the federal Disaster Relief Program.

What needs to happen is that the provincial government has to apply. In other words, the provincial government has to initiate it. The Minister of Fisheries for our Province mentioned today that it would cost in the area of $2 million. What I have been informed by my colleague in Ottawa is that, if the Province initiated the claim, if we were to put in somewhere in the area of $500,000, the federal government would put in the extra $1.5 million.

I encourage the minister, for the residents of the Southwest and Northwest Coast, and the communities in which they live, I would hope that he would indeed initiate a claim with the federal government so that we could give some relief to those people who are in much need of it right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I have already spoken to this particular piece, but I just wanted to, by leave, move a motion that would replace the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse Clair with the Member for Labrador West on the Social Services Estimates Committee. I believe there has been a discussion on that already, so if we can just quickly move to that, I will move that now and get it out of the way so then it is done on a go-forward basis.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The House clearly heard the motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against, if any?

Motion carried.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunities we have been given here with this particular Committee debate on Bill 15 with respect to The Local Authority Guarantee Act. I have checked with our House Leader and, to my knowledge, I believe our members feel they have had ample opportunity to speak to the issues here and are willing, after I make my few comments, to do the necessary votes in Committee so that we can proceed on to other legislation.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make a few comments again. I did get an opportunity to speak in Committee the last time about this particular bill, and its impact on the Budget, and the fact that we are talking about millions of dollars worth of loans here for the cities and towns of Newfoundland and Labrador, our municipalities, and even some of our local service districts are included in these particular bills, that have borrowed money that they cannot do without the approbation and approval of the provincial government, because that is what the law says, to invest in infrastructure in their communities, water and sewer. I know in my own district, for example, in a community like Phillips Head, they have been waiting for years and only borrowed small amounts like $50,000, but when the homemade, handmade, waterline that they put in, pick and shovel, years and years ago, with a federal grant, springs a few leaks, then they go and borrow some money, with the endorsement of the provincial government, to patch and repair and put in a few valves and so on, it is everything from that kind of thing to the biggest projects in the Province like the cleanup of the harbour in St. John's, $93 million - not all in this bill, but as the borrowing is done it gets added to the bill from time to time. So, there are millions of dollars borrowed on an annual basis and then they are all rolled into the financing corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Municipal Financing Corporation, and they get added to the overall debt of the Province.

Again, the point I made the other day and the point I will make briefly again today, is this: While there are millions of dollars here, actually in this bill, and hundreds of millions of dollars in total, in introducing the resolution, the Finance Minister would say: Treat it as something routine because there is no history of default. It is hundreds of millions of dollars of debt but it has been paid for. It is done from Municipal Operating Grants, from local taxation. People do not default. There is no real risk, so do not get too concerned about this bill. Vote for it.

We intend to vote for it, because these particular loans have been floated. The work has been done. The results of it are there in the communities, to the benefit of the people, and there will be a bill just like this next year that will be brought forward again showing the loans. I think the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs today was talking about some of it when he said there would be $100 million worth - in excess of it, I think - of capital works again, which some borrowing will have to done. This time kind of a procedure will go through. There will be a bill here again next year where the municipalities - in some cases, some of it will be for other things, but largely, in this case, municipalities will be sort of on the hook for an extra $100 million worth of work that is done. Again, the government will make these loans because they believe there is very little, if any, and most likely no risk. Now, that is fine and that is what we are debating in this particular bill.

The problem I pointed out again the last time, that I will spend just a minute or so on is this: When it fits the government's myth about how bad the financing of the Province is, and how bad the fiscal circumstance is, they take this $100 million or so and they say: There is another $100 million worth of debt, look, that the Liberals wasted, and that the debt has gone up by so many billion dollars in the last - well, this is part of it. These kinds of loans are part of it. So, when they want us to vote for it, they say: Don't worry about it, there is no risk. There has never been a default. This is routine. But, when they are making a speech to try to justify why there is a wage freeze, why we have the hundreds of layoffs that we are talking about in the Legislature in the last few days, why they are going to cut 4,000 jobs out of the public service over the next four years, when they want to make that speech, they roll this same bill in and say: Oh, by the way, do you know those loans that we told you to vote for the other day because there is no problem? They are part of the problem.

It is the double standard, Mr. Chairman, that I spoke about the last time that, again, I want to put on the record in terms of our only real concern. It is not with the bill and not with these loans, because they are all good and they are right and they are proper. They should have been done when they were. The work has been completed. People are benefitting from it: water and sewer, local roads, community halls, recreation facilities. The people of the Province are benefitting from the expenditures, and the loans are being paid and they are being handled. They are being paid, by the way, with the $500 million of interest that is in this Budget, not the $1 billion that the Premier tried to tell the people of the Province they are paying. The same Budget that this is part of, shows that there is $500 million in interest, on loans like these and others that have been accumulated over the last fifty-four years, that we are still paying.

The Premier, for some reason unbeknownst to me, wanted the people of the Province to believe that it was $1 billion, almost twice as much. Now we know, because he wanted to layoff some people, he wanted to have a wage freeze, he wanted to do some other things, so to justify that he says these loans are really bad, even though the Finance Minister is here today saying, they are not bad at all, they are good, vote for them because it is routine.

The last point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is this: We have had the government now in the last week or so, starting last Friday before the Premier went on his European trip - and we wish him every success in the world with respect to 5 Wing Goose Bay and the foreign overfishing issues. They are important. They talked about second prong, the business development, the growing the economy, the generating extra revenue, creating more opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, increasing employment so that the revenues of the Province would increase and improve so that we can pay for these loans and the loans that we are going to float this year. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was up today talking about $100 million worth of work that is going to be done. Guess how it is going to get done? They are going to borrow $100 million through a loan just like this one. We are going to pay it off over time, because you do not pay cash for your roads, you do not pay cash for your homes, and you do not pay cash for your arenas. The contractors get paid, but the government gives someone the authority to borrow the money. Just like me with my house, I pay it off over time and hope that I live long enough to be mortgage free. As long as I can make the mortgage payments, I can live in my house and be quite comfortable. If I start missing my mortgage payments, then I have a problem.

What the Premier is trying to suggest to people is that we are about to miss the mortgage payment which is not true. He said we have to spend $1 billion, when the Budget we are debating says it is one-half a billion. We are nowhere close to missing the mortgage payment. Believe me when I say that. In other speeches in the next week, the Liberal Opposition will say we are not near bankruptcy, the Premier will get up and say, we are. I guess people will judge what the truth is. I know what the truth is. We are not about to lose the home. We are not about to have them roll up the pavement. We are not about to have them take back the new civic centre and convention centre and Mile One in St. John's. They are not about to take down The Rooms, even though it is not opening this year, $43 million, no one is going to take it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-seven million.

MR. GRIMES: It is $47 million. It is going to be used for some weddings this year, I understand, for some prominent people in this Legislature, tie it into some weddings. There will be some weddings there. There might not be an art exhibit, but there will be some weddings in there, I can guarantee you that. Mr. Speaker, there is no risk these things are going to happen.

Now what you have is the other prong. The headline in the paper was, the other shoe drops, the other shoe being a positive one for business development and economic growth.

That leads me to the last point, that here we are tonight about to go into an Estimate Committee about the Business Department of which the Premier is the Minister. For the first time in history, the minister of a department is not going to come to the Estimates Committee for the department. The other things that the Government House Leader was talking about today, Mr. Chairman, are all under the Executive Council. There is no department for that, there is no minister for that, it is done in the Legislature.

Actually, in the documents that are here, the ones that actually get covered in the Legislature, because there is no minister directly responsible for them in terms of being head of a department - we do the Consolidated Fund Services, even though it is in Finance, but it is usually done in here in the Legislature. We do the Executive Council in the Legislature because there is no minister of the Executive Council. There is a president of it, by the way, who is usually the Premier. Sometimes it has been someone else. Then we usually do Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, sometimes in the department. We do the Legislature in here, because there is no minister responsible for the Legislature, we are all equal, and we do the Public Service Commission. Those Estimates are done in the Legislature, as a committee in the House, because there is no minister that knows any more about it than any of us. We are all sort of equally responsible for those, so they are done in the Legislature and when you do them in the Legislature, do these general headings, the government decides who speaks. It could be the Premier, it could be the Minister of Finance, or it could be the Government House Leader. It has been all kinds of people over the years.

I can tell the Government House Leader, for the record, that when I was the Premier I did answer some of the questions about the operations of the Premier's office, right in this Legislature. I was here in the Legislature, because I am almost always here, unlike some Premiers and some other people, and I answered the questions. They were asked when I was here and I answered them. I did not necessarily answer about the Public Service Commission because the President of Treasury Board probably knew more about that than I did, in terms of detail.

That is the point, Mr. Chairman, the committees are for detail, they are not for generic questions. The only person that knows the detail about the new Department of Business is the Minister for Business. As a matter of fact-

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I could just conclude, because these would be my last comments?

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: The Minister of Finance has admitted that he does not know the details. He admitted for two departments yesterday. The government has already decided to offer someone else tonight, instead of the Minister of Finance. They have offered the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and she is in Hansard, Mr. Chairman, as saying- she was asked about the Department of Business, her answer in our record is: Do not ask me about the Department of Business, the Premier is handling that. He knows the details on that because he is the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, it is unfortunate that that event is to occur this evening. I know the Speaker has undertaken to give a ruling about that sometime, probably today. There is an event again this evening, that I believe is unfortunate that it is occurring.

With respect to this bill, Mr. Chairman, I want to made quite clear, I concur with the assessment of the Minister of Finance, that this is routine, that this is secured debt, that this is not at risk, and this does not create a problem for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Treasury or anybody else. We plan to vote for it and we appreciate the opportunity to have made our comments in the committee with you in the chair, Mr. Chairman, as we have gone through this process.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local authorities.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: Against.

Clause 1 carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

The enacting clause will be carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957."(Bill 15)

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

The title will be carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report 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 of that motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: 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 that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommends that if a bill be introduced to the give effect to the same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local authorities.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 15 be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15 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 Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957," Bill 15.

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

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

I move that Bill 15 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15 be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957," Bill 15.

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

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

I move that Bill 15 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957," Bill 15.

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 Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we continue with debate, the Speaker wishes to rule with regard to a point of order raised earlier today, with regard to the Estimates hearings for the Resource Committee scheduled later in the day, and more specifically a decision to hold committee hearings for the Department of Business without the Minister being present.

Members will note that the Committee, namely the Resource Committee, has been designated by a motion of the House to hear the Estimates for the Department of Business.

Marleau and Montpetit, on page 736, reads as follows, "Committees considering Estimates may invite witnesses to appear; these typically include the Minister, departmental or agency officials, and interested individuals or groups."

The use of the word "typically" suggests the commonality of a practice but does not indicate an obligation or directive. Thus, while the presence of a minister when Estimates are considered is customary, such attendance is not mandatory.

In conclusion, it is not the role of the Speaker to name or designate which witnesses an Estimates Committee may decide to call, or the day and time of meeting. This matter is the exclusive prerogative of the Committee itself. Thus, there is no point of order because the naming and calling of witnesses to an Estimates Committee is a decision of that particular Committee.

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

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

I move to Order 2, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill 6)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act." (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act. 1991. Mr. Speaker, this bill, while it is bordering on housekeeping, I suppose, is a very important piece of legislation because it has to do with fire prevention in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Prior to the creation of the Government Services Centre, Mr. Speaker, the Fire Commissioner's Office reviewed all building plans to make sure that they met the national building code and to make sure that proper precautions were in place for the prevention of the spread of fire. The responsibility was transferred to the Department of Government Services and Lands back in 1996, along with the staff responsible to carry out those reviews. The legislation was not amended at that point in time, or since, to allow this to happen. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, basically, I suppose, there were inspections being done by a department that really had the right to do it from a certain perspective but did not have the legislative authority to do that.

All we are doing now with this piece of legislation is giving the proper authority to the proper department to carry out those inspections. As I said, the amendment provides legislative authority to provide building plan reviews by competent professionals with the Department of Government Services and with the Government Services Centre and allows the Fire Commissioner to delegate responsibility to that Centre, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know, but members opposite may want to speak to that. The former minister may want to, but really it is a piece of legislation that is necessary, required, and is bordering on housekeeping. Other than that, I think that is all I need to say on it at this point in time. If there are more questions, we can deal with them in Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the minister. In fact, this is one of the pieces of legislation that the officials had prepared for me and I never had a time to do it; but, as the minister has said, the proper authority is with the Department of Government Services. Legislation had not been done to give them the proper authority to do it, and this act does that, so there is no need for me to speak a long time on it. It is a routine matter that has to be done, this particular piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second 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 Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 6)

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

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act." (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Again, another routine bill coming before the House of Assembly, An Act to Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, Mr. Speaker. The proposed amendment, basically, will remove the requirement for all municipalities to be inspected by the Department of Municipal Affairs each year. There are some 450 municipalities that would have to be inspected. We only have nine inspectors to do that work. Basically, it is an impossibility to do this each and every year for each and every municipality. There are procedures in place now, through the department, on a rotational basis, that any municipality could be inspected at any given time by the department and at the request of a given municipality.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the department has implemented an accountability framework. The towns themselves have progressed and matured to a point where they have their accounting procedures in place to deal with the accounts of each and every municipality. As I said, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs can request and send the assessors in at any given time to do a review of the municipalities.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, there is not much more to say on this piece of legislation. It is routine. It is something that was ongoing from the previous Administration. The previous minister was in the process of having this done and it is just, I suppose, that time frames did not permit it. We are just here now trying to clue that up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with what the minister again is saying here. Over the last number of years there has been a tremendous amount of time and effort put into the professionalism of town managers and town clerks across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Obviously we do not need, from a department point of view, but the minister still has the right - and the department - any time he wants to go into a municipality to inspect the books and have an audit done, then by all means do so. With the qualified staff, as I said, with many of the larger towns and the smaller communities that have availed of the opportunity to train, to take courses from Memorial University and other institutions and so on, they have become professional in their own right and prepare their budgets for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

I concur with the minister, that there is no need to have 308 municipalities done every year as an audit, but, again, the bill does give the minister and the department the right, if they see a problem, for them to go in and be able to do the audit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second 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 Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 8)

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

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

Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Emergencies Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act." (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a very important piece of legislation when you look at the overall protection of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a bill to amend the Emergency Measures Act and, of course, the purpose of the Emergency Measures Act is to provide for the organization and administration of emergency measures. Newfoundland and Labrador has taken many steps over the past number of years for preparation in emergency situations. Of course, we saw one a couple of years ago with the 9-11 situation where the previous minister and the Emergency Measures Organization and the Fire Commissioner's office were all involved in that situation with 9-11.

Basically, this bill would allow for the Eastern Coast Provinces and the New England states and the Province of Quebec to sign a Memorandum of Understanding between the provinces to share services in an emergency situation to assist one another. Again, if you look at it from the perspective, I suppose, of the emergency situation that arose in Canada in the past year with respect to the B.C. fires and the SARS situation in Ontario, we would benefit quite handsomely from that situation. Basically, the Conference of the New England states and the Eastern Coast Provinces, Eastern Canadian Provinces and Quebec is going to be held this year, in August, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This piece of legislation would allow the Premier of the Province to sign this Memorandum of Understanding, to be able to - the Province and those other provinces, the New England states and Quebec, would be able to co-operate with their services and their equipment and, of course, everybody would benefit. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we would never have to be called upon to share these services one with the other, but to be prepared, I suppose, is a measure whereby the preparedness to address emergency situations. No one knows, Mr. Speaker, when we are going to have an emergency situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or the New England states or Quebec or the Eastern Canadian Provinces.

Mr. Speaker, again, this is something, I think, that was probably started by the previous Administration, that we are basically going to complete in the very near future and this lies before the House, and I expect the critic would agree with those comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I concur with the minister. It is very important. The Leader of the Opposition, was then the Premier at the time, signed a Memorandum of Understanding in July of 2002, but in order to make it official it has to come to the House and be passed as a piece of legislation.

The minister talked about - I will just take a minute - the emergency that happened September 11, 2002. I had the opportunity to be at the command centre, I guess - if you want to call it that - with all of the people who were here in St. John's at that time. It was a tremendous learning experience for a person like me to be there and, as the minister said, we never hope for those things to happen and hope that they will never again. When you can share with the expertise that you have with the New England governors, with the Atlantic provinces, with the Province of Quebec, in case of an emergency like this here, then really, this is the thing that we are doing. It enhances the protection that you have for the people of this Province.

Again, there is not much more for me to elaborate on other than that. It is another piece of legislation - as the minister said about the other two that were prepared and never got a chance to get to the House, and he is bringing it here. I am glad that he is and I will support.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 5)

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

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

Order 5, the second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 16).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act." (Bill 16)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act and the bill, as the Explanatory Note indicates, is very brief. It permits the Province to participate in the program that is administrated by the Minister of National Revenue for Canada to allow the recovery of provincial and federal debts from income tax refunds and repayments.

In order to collect, if someone is delinquent, we can do a setup program to get our money deducted at source from their income tax. Now, we would exhaust all channels on the provincial level for low-income people to look at any efforts to collect and work out reasonable payments and so on before we would ever put it to that level but, at least, it allows us an opportunity to get money that is owed the government. Many people have left this Province. We do not have any other opportunity to be able to get that. Some may be working with good paying jobs and they have debts here. It allows a more efficient match-up to get that, especially from social insurance numbers and by their income tax. I think it is positive in enabling people to meet their responsibilities here, but we will ensure that any reasonable hardship cases are looked at and they would not be referred to this unless they have exhausted all reasonable avenues here that would normally be carried out at the departmental level anyway.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I have twenty minutes to speak on this bill. Do I, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Thank you, very much.

I am pleased today to respond to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board on Bill 16. This is an important piece of legislation. I agree with the minister, who introduced this bill, that it will not be used. We have the minister's assurance, on behalf of his government, that this bill will not come into play and this legislation that we are looking at today, unless every other possibility has been exhausted in collecting money owed to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does tell us that there is one avenue available if everything else fails, and that is to tap into any kind of an income tax return, or refund, that any taxpayer might have who resides in our Province and who owes money to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a necessary piece of legislation. This is one of the bills that I will certainly be agreeing to. It is a money bill. I would like to spend part of my time, Mr. Speaker, just elaborating on a couple of items in the Budget.

Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition brought to the attention of the government the Budget Details and Statistics used when the Budget was actually compiled and presented in this House of Assembly on March 30. Having a look through it myself, since our Leader brought it to the House today, I was kind of shocked myself when I had a look at it. Because, as we all know, I represent the District of Grand Falls-Buchans and, of course, my colleague across the way represents the District of Windsor-Springdale. Sometimes there is confusion as to what part of the district he represents and what part I represent, but it is clear that something unusual has happened when I look in this book today. I looked down over the Budget details for Grand Falls-Buchans and everything is in order, but when I look out at the Budget details for Windsor-Springdale there are a few things out of order. I do not know if that means that the new government does not know the geography of the forty-eight districts. It became apparent today, when the Minister of Government Services decided that she would have to reverse a decision for the people of Labrador West who could not get their driver examinations done, that she knew full well, after the member for that district brought it to her attention, that nobody should travel 1,200 kilometres to get their driver exams.

I wonder do they need another geography lesson today, because I am looking under Windsor-Springdale and I see something here. It says: Funding is provided for the operation of the Arts and Culture Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor. Well, I believe the Arts and Culture Centre is in the part of my district in Grand Falls-Windsor. I certainly believe that, and I am sure the 16,000 residents would probably agree to that, as well.

I also see that, "Community Economic Development Program funding continues to replicate Lord Northcliffe's log house in Grand Falls-Windsor." I would think that would be in my part of the district in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I also see that, "Community Economic Development Program funding continues for the repairs to the Grand Falls-Windsor fishway." I would confirm that is definitely in my part of the district of Grand Falls-Buchans.

Then it says, "A grant will be provided to the Exploits Valley Development Association to subsidize expenditures for operation of the local visitor information chalet (funding for seasonal employees, chalet operations and maintenance)." I have to say, that several years ago the Exploits Valley Development Association came to me and asked me, as their member, if I would lobby government and make sure that they had $10,000 a year to look after the operations of their tourist chalet because it does - and I am sure the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will agree, that those chalets around the Province provide a valuable service to our traveling tourists. They were always in a lurch every year wondering what they were going to do about actually getting operating funds for their tourist chalet. I lobbied my government, at the time, and we made a commitment that every year we would provide a base figure of $10,000 so the tourism chalet could operate.

Do you know what I am finding after reading this? That that is reduced by 10 per cent. Now, it was a very small grant in the beginning, $10,000, but if you take 10 per cent of it you know you are taking $1,000 away from that base grant. That makes a huge difference when a small association like the Exploits Valley Economic Development Corporation is trying to provide a service to the motoring public and the traveling public and trying to increase tourism potential in all of the Central area. To think that this government has gotten to be so small, as to reduce that budget by 10 per cent, take $1, 000 off the $10,000 that we initially agreed to for several years, I cannot believe that is happening.

Why these announcements would be in the District for Windsor-Springdale is beyond me. I would like to find out if that was accidental or whether it was intentional, because if this is the way this government is going to act, how can anybody trust what they are doing? Everybody knows full-well, from the items that I just announced here, they belong in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans. Why I was not notified, why the people connected to this were not notified - that is a downright insult to the people of Grand Falls-Buchans District. I think it is an absolute insult, as I said, and I cannot imagine how this government could do this and actually get away with it. How many more districts are finding out the same thing when they look in this book? That is an insult, and I would hope, by mentioning it here in the House of Assembly today, that somebody would have the courage to go back and make the proper changes here, because I am sure the people of Grand Falls-Buchans would not appreciate this one bit. That is only one aspect of this book.

I want to talk a little bit about the students of our Province and what happened here in this House yesterday. I asked a simple question: How much funding was going to be put into student employment programs for this summer? I did not get the answer in the House of Assembly yesterday, the answer came later when the minister was pressed by the media on what was actually happening here.

I can tell you, that students were always a top priority of the previous government. In fact, it was such a prioritiy that we decided, as a former administration, that we would have a department designated to young people only. We were listening to them, and, as a result of listening to them, we made many changes that resulted in an easier time for them in actually attracting student employment and reducing their debt loads.

What I found out yesterday - the minister wasn't exactly clear on what she did say to the media. She said, yesterday, to the media, that the student employment program had been cut by $1.2 million. If anyone was to check the Estimates here in this book, last year in 2003 we had $9 million in total student programs. There are fifteen of them. This year there is only $6 million designated to students over the fifteen programs. That is a decrease of $3 million. That is a huge decrease for students.

Now, when you talk about student employment, is it important to this government? I don't know. I get the impression it is not. Just imagine students in my own district, in Buchans, in Millertown, in Buchans Junction in Badger, the three rural parts of my district, where are they going to get a job for the summer? There are no national chain stores. There are none of these national franchises, the fast foods. There are a few stores and the hospital and so on. Even the hospital will depend on government supplying them with a student grant to hire people. Who are affected? I know, from being the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, that 75 per cent of all the student summer programs went to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They didn't go here on the Avalon, in St. John's.

When I look across the way, I see lots of members who are representing rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a big shame for the students of this Province. They have had several blows now over the past sixty days. They had their own department wiped out. That was gone. The College of the North Atlantic, they are laying off people, they are cancelling programs, at the request of this government to find $2 million. These are the kinds of things being done. There is only a White Paper being done, and a White Paper is usually looking for more efficiencies. We don't know what is going to happen to Memorial University when they have to find their $2 million.

We have found out, not through any announcement by this government, but we have found out through our own research, that the $3 million tax credit program that we provided last year, and it is on everyone's income tax, everyone in this Province that filed an income tax return up to April 30, they would have seen that there was a section in it for students being able to include payments that they made on their student loan, the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan. Anyone who made a payment, they were able to get a tax credit.

Maybe this government does not see that as important but we, in our wisdom - and it was working - thought that by helping students paying off their student loans, that would encourage them to lay down anchor here and start their careers, start their families, and be able to look at a house sooner, and maybe a new car or whatever comes with setting up, when you are a young person. The quicker you can pay off a student loan, the quicker you are going to get established and start a home and a family and everything that goes with it, but this new government did not see that as important at all. They did not see it as important. They wiped it out.

In a few days' time - it depends on what the House Leader chooses to do - they will be bringing forward Bill 7 to confirm what we announced last year, because it was an intention for it to be effective for the 2003 tax year. We had to do it in that manner and we had to notify Revenue Canada, mid-summer, that it was about to take place. That was done, and it appeared on everyone's tax return for April 30, this year.

You know, that would look after a great number of students. For instance, if somebody paid $1,000 on the principle of their student loan, they would get a tax credit for $300. Three hundred dollars, you cannot laugh at $300. That means a lot to any student with a high student debt load. It means an awful lot. This government did not think it was important. They are cancelling that. They are saying a one-year tuition freeze. Even the President of the College of the North Atlantic, she said herself that, as President of the College of the North Atlantic, she cannot sustain a tuition freeze based on the current budget. So, what does that mean? That means one of two things: programs will be cut, teachers will be let go, and probably the inevitable - campuses may close. She said, in her own words, in The Telegram, that in years to come the College of the North Atlantic will become more centralized.

More centralized only means one thing to me. It does not mean that you are going to maintain the campuses out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what it means. It means that students who want to go to post-secondary education, through the College of the North Atlantic, will be having to go to the bigger centres around the Province. What does that mean for students and their parents? It means they have to dish out more money. That is exactly what that means. They have to dish out more money to get their education.

This government got elected on making education more accessible, more affordable and all of the things for students, but, if anybody has been following this whole episode they would see - even though our Premier is a Rhodes Scholar, highly regarded in his field, and an expert businessperson, he should be touting the merits of a good education, but that was an early indication when he did not show up for the debate at MUN with the other two leaders. I think the students should have gotten an indication at that point that he was not interested in their welfare.

We also saw the government rush to put through a bill for the student loan portfolio from the Bank of Commerce, all in a panic; it must be put through for March 30. It had zero affect on students and their repayment schedule. It did not pay off any of their loans. The government was no more affected on March 31 than it was April 1. They had to look at a big deficit for the people of this Province so they would have a plan to tell the public servants: Look, this is our situation. We cannot pay you any more.

They succeeded, They succeeded in that plan. They frightened the daylights out of the whole Province. They did that. What have they been doing since that? Well, I would be the first to say that they are steamrolling throughout the Province and they are leaving devastation in their tracks. They have no thought to checking with anybody, or who is going to be affected, who is going to be hurt.

I saw the Minister of Finance yesterday. He got up in his place and responded to layoffs. All he talked about was the number of layoffs - numbers, numbers, numbers. Do you know something? Behind every one of those numbers that he said, there was a person, and it was a person who has a family behind them, probably a husband or wife and children, and they belong in a community somewhere where they are paying on a house, or they are paying on a snow machine, they are paying on a camper, or they have a cabin up in the woods, and they are part of the community fiber that is now going to be thrown to the wind. So, how can you get up and talk about people as if they were numbers and not have any kind of concern at all, just rhyme out a few numbers? We are going to lay off so many this year. No, we are not really laying them off; it is going to be through attrition.

Last night, I sat through the Estimates Committee for Environment and Conservation, and I asked the minister: What will be the total layoffs this year? After a lot of jockeying back and forth, talking about attrition, talking about retirements, talking about temporaries, talking about this and talking about something else, he told me that he expected twenty-two to be laid off. I asked him if he could provide me with a list of the number of people who will be let go this year through attrition, what locations they will be located in, and what positions.

It was a funny thing, you know, Mr. Speaker. Last night, I asked him about the positions that were laid off. Last year, when he was the Opposition critic, he was almost dancing on his desk about having to have water quality specialists, waste management specialists, and everything else. Do you know something? He was able to tell me last night that they could manage without these people. Now, that is a difference of fifteen feet in the House of Assembly. I never saw a more passionate Minister of Environment - the one who is there now - than when he was the Opposition critic over here, but he so casually sloughed that off last night like the whole department could run without these specialists. They were not necessary.

I know my time is winding down, Mr. Speaker. There are so many things about this Budget, and I can tell you that people out around the Province are feeling this pain. I do not know if members on the government side are reacting, apparently not, but from the e-mails, the telephone calls and the messages that I am getting, as the critic for Finance and Treasury Board, and in my own district, people are calling me all over the Province. They want this government to put the brakes on. Lives are getting disrupted. Communities are getting disrupted. People are feeling the brunt of these cuts. They are too quick, they are too severe, and there is not enough research. There is not enough thought given to them, and there is too much destruction.

I know that my time is getting short - in fact, it is over - but I want to say to this government: Have a second, sober thought, because you are destroying a lot of lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second 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 Financial Administration Act. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act," read a second time ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 16)

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 7).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is fairly straightforward. In fact, back over a year ago the previous government brought in, in their Budget announcement, that there was going to be a direct credit on their taxes for students paying their student loan. They never passed the legislation to enact that, so this fall I had to send a letter off indicating that we would do it, because it was announced; and, rather than go back and change it, we made that announcement.

What that will do, it will allow people, if they pay, for example - I will use $1,000 - on their principle, if you are a single parent or you have a disability, you will get 30 per cent of that, a direct credit. You will get it back, basically, as a credit on your tax. If you were going to get $300 back in your taxes, overall, this would put you back to $600, if you paid $1,000. It will not put you into a negative position where you get money back, but it will allow you to get a direct credit on taxes that would be owing so you could get that credit. If you are not disabled or a single parent, it would be 20 per cent. That would start - and there is a table here that shows it - basically, anybody $30,000 or under $30,100, in that range, would get the full amount and then, in graduation, from $30,000 up to $50,000, it would disappear at that level. So, this is made -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the whole story.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not finished yet, I would tell the member. I will tell the full story.

Mr. Speaker, we could have left it and not done anything with it, but what we did do in this tax year, we decided to bring in, in our Budget, to help low income people, anybody getting less than $12,000 now would pay no taxes; a family of two with less than $19,000 would pay no provincial income tax. That is around $416 that it would amount to. An individual would, basically, be at a credit. Also, for low income people, we looked at indexing, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the child benefit and the seniors benefit, to index them also, and it would be at 2.9 per cent to allow low income people - they were initiatives that we did. We said, because they had announced it, it was late in the fall, in all fairness, when the House was coming here, we said we would put it through and allow them to get that benefit for 2003.

That is the gist of this. If anybody has any specific questions when we are in Committee, I can certainly explain it further. We decided to do it because people might have had the expectation; it was pretty late in the year at the time in November when we took office. We said, in all fairness, it is something that we should do. We did look at, on the other side, other measures in our Budget this year for low income people to deal with. I have already made reference to some of them, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: I am shocked, because I thought the Government House Leader was going to leave a bit of space between what I just said, but he had the nerve to call the bill. He had the nerve to call the bill.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear on what the member just said, that I had the nerve to call the bill. That is my job, as Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The job of government is to pass legislation. The person on the government side, known as the Government House Leader, is the person who moves the legislation, puts the necessary motions forward for debate so that it provides the opportunity for the member opposite to debate.

I just want to be clear so the member clearly understands that if it is nerve that takes the move to call a bill, well, I am going to be demonstrating a lot of nerve over the next four-and-a-half weeks.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe again a point of clarification, or to speak to the point that was raised by the Government House Leader. I do not think it is the fault of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans here, in all fairness to her. She was on her feet speaking to Order 5, Bill 16, when the Government House Leader approached me to indicate that the Minister of Finance was not going to be in the House, which I took to be he would not be here to proceed with Order 6. So, as soon as she left her feet from speaking to Bill 16, I had to ask her to stand up and speak to this bill, when she, in fairness to her, did not think she was going to have to because the Minister of Finance was supposedly not going to be here, but he is back in the House and proceeding. So that is where the confusion came from. It was just a misunderstanding by all parties here. The one who should have known, I guess, that she was going to be expected to get back on her feet again was the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, and she did not get that information from us.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate the clarification by the member, and I certainly apologize to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule that there is no point of order, but a point of clarification.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans continuing debate.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly have no problem getting up and speaking to this bill. I would like to say thank you to the Opposition House Leader for your take on this, but what I was saying, I had just gotten down and I talked about how sort of cold the new government was to destroy the hopes of students who would be paying on their student loan and getting a tax credit. I thought that the Government House Leader might be leaving some time between what I said and actually calling the bill about what I said, but he has chosen to call it today, and that is fine by me. I know this bill inside out. I was the one who brought it to Cabinet and had it approved, and I know it is a good bill.

This bill, as I described a few minutes ago, is going to help a lot. It would have been able to help a lot of people. It probably helped a lot of people this year with their income tax return. When you look at the fact that it is going to help people on a small income, up to $30,000, and particularly single parents, and also disabled persons, but the new government do not see the merits of this bill. It is a $3 million expense. They would be getting less taxes in the government coffers, and they do not see it as a priority. I thought this was an excellent bill. It was touted by all the students as being great.

When you compare it to the low-income benefits that the Minister of Finance just introduced, his method will not give anybody any money in their pocket until 2006, whereas this method was going to put money in people's pockets in 2004. Not only that, his is only for people making less than $12,000. We all know that any student who is going to graduate from post-secondary education, I would hope and think that their salary is going to be beyond $12,000 after spending a good bit of time in post-secondary education. So, this is a wonderful Liberal initiative that will only see one year on an income tax return. It is clear that this government does not see that as one of their priorities. They do not see any of this for students as a priority. They do not look at education as a priority at all. If they are hoping for young people to be able to run our Province in the future and want to stay here, live and work and start their families and their careers, I think they had better think twice about this.

I will get another opportunity to speak about this bill in greater detail when we get to the next stage. I look forward to doing that then.

Thank you.

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

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just very briefly. I just want to say to the hon. member opposite, if her previous government thought it was such a fantastic idea on this bill, why didn't you bring legislation in to put it into effect? Because we had to do it and allowed to do it for one year. So, that really shows the lip service they paid to this bill.

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

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: I think the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board is playing on words because he knows full well any item that is brought forward in a budget - and later one of the plans of bringing forward that last year in our Budget was that we would have consultation with the students as to how we would spend that $3 million, and that process took place after the Budget and, as a result of that, we could not make this spring session of the House. If you recall, in the fall session of the House, which we did not have, you were the new government.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 7)

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

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

Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9, An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry." (Bill 9)

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act is a new optometry act. It basically has three changes. First, it enables optometrists to prescribe certain medications and those medications will be defined under the regulations. It will also allow optometrists to form professional corporations, as other professionals are allowed to do. It also defines new disciplinary procedures for optometrists, and this forms a large part of the new legislation. It will indicate a more transparent and open process with regard to disciplinary procedures for optometry.

I would like to say that those three changes and making amendments to the current Optometry Act, the changes would have been so pervasive that it was thought that a new Optometry Act would be the preferred alternative, and this is what was done.

The Newfoundland Medical Board, Newfoundland Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Association, the Optometry Association, the Optometry Board, have all reviewed the legislation and have no problem with it. This legislation is also in line with what is happening along other jurisdictions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Just a word concerning this new bill concerning the practice of optometry. Indeed, in second reading, I guess, is the appropriate place to make a few comments. This is not earthshattering. It has been on the drawing board for quite some time. All affected parties are well aware of it. There are many professionals in the Province who regulate themselves, lawyers, accountants, and all kinds of professionals. This was one group of professionals in our Province who want to do the same thing and avail of the same benefits that are available to the other professional groups who regulate themselves. So we certainly have no difficulty with the principal of this bill and would certainly be supportive of it.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House? Now?

On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 9)

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

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre For Health Information. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information." (Bill 17)

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This legislation incorporates the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. It currently operates under the auspices of the St. John's Health Care Corporation. This corporation sets it up as a Crown agency which reports to the Minister of Health and on through to the House of Assembly. The Centre for Health provides a comprehensive, Province-wide health information centre.

The legislation was introduced in a prior session of the House of Assembly under the hon. members opposite. There have been no changes made to this bill, with one exception. There was a change made to a section regarding the annual report of the corporation. I did ask for an amendment to be made so that the annual report will be required to be presented to me and passed on to the House of Assembly for the purview of the hon. members opposite and also the hon. members on this side of the House of Assembly.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a comment here. I will not belabour the point here, in second reading. We will get to Committee stage and we will certainly have an opportunity to discuss some of the details of this particular bill.

It was brought into this House by the former administration, the then Minister of Health and Community Services, and as a result of input from the Member for Lewisporte and the Leader of the NDP, in fact, it was voluntarily withdrawn because there had to be some changes made to the bill. Again, it showed an incidence where albeit the government of the day made a good stab at it, they did not have things done right and, thanks to the Opposition of that time, those improvements have been incorporated into the new piece of legislation.

One word of caution, however, to the minister, and I do it at this point - and there is nothing wrong with the principles of the act as we see it. In fact, any information that we, ourselves, have, as residents, that can be used to develop programs in the future that are going to be helpful to all of us in the Province, is indeed a great and noble initiative to have. I would, however, caution that when we are talking about comprehensive, province-wide information systems, we have had since January 1 of this year, the Federal Privacy Act proclaimed. What we are doing here is taking private information on people, in this Province, and we are putting it into a system to be used, albeit for the betterment of the people. We are doing and we are using people's personal and private information, so we have to be very, very cautious.

I notice here, we talk about doing this in conformity with our new Access to Information and Privacy Act. Albeit this House passed our Access to Information and Privacy Act, it has not yet been proclaimed. We have raised this question in the House, I raised it in a question to the Minister of Justice some weeks ago. We have to be careful that we pass this particular act here, saying it is relying upon the regulations of the access to the Information and Privacy Act, when we have not, indeed, proclaimed that Act yet.

I would say, just as a word of caution, let's not do something here and put the cart before the horse, when our regulations concerning privacy in this Province, we, indeed, have not proclaimed that Act in and of itself. We have to be careful to make sure that at least it is done simultaneously to avoid any conflicts in that regard.

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

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information." (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health And Information," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 17)

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

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

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: My good friend from Twillingate & Fogo is just sharing a light moment, I guess, is the way to put it. It does happen from time to time. I am glad it does, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. It is not very often, but from time to time it does. He has been in a lighter mood this week. I do not know why, but it is good to see.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pretty significant piece of work done this afternoon. I want to compliment all members on both sides of the House for that.

With that, I wish members to have a good weekend and move that the House do now adjourn and return on Monday coming up, on May 17.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until Monday, May 17 at 1:30 p.m.

All those in favour say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, a point of order has been called by the Opposition House Leader. We will defer the vote until after this.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as clarification here again. The Government House Leader undertook - earlier in the day, following Question Period, there was an issue raised by the Government House Leader that he undertook, or the Leader of the Opposition, to provide some information to the House before we broke this afternoon.

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

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

I apologize for that in terms of it slipped my mind.

I am going to be in a position on Monday to answer the question directly. The minister responsible, the Minister of Government Services, is not in the City this afternoon. She is outside, I believe, somewhere in Central Newfoundland. I want to be able to have a chance to speak with her first so that there is perfect clarity on the issues that were raised this afternoon. The moment that is done - it will be Tuesday, because I am not here myself on Monday. Sorry! So, it will be when I get back that we will be able to deal with this expeditiously and hopefully rest any concerns, or alleviate any concerns, that have been raised by hon. members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the motion to adjourn, all those in favour say, Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra minded, nay.

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, May 17 at 1:30 p.m.