MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; and the hon. the Member for the District of Gander.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday night, in fact a week from today, I had the privilege of attending a firefighters' meeting in Little Catalina, in the District of Bonavista South, and at that particular time the long-term services of five firefighters were recognized for contributing in excess of thirty years of service by each one of them as a firefighter in Little Catalina. Mr. Speaker, the names of the recipients were: Jeffrey Dalton, Gerald Dalton, Clarence Day, Frank Johnson, and Derek Rideout.

It is very fitting that the provincial government, this government, as other governments, have recognized the longevity of people volunteering their time as firefighters in this Province. Firefighters today go beyond the call of just fighting fires. In fact, I think we should soon name them emergency response teams, when you look at what they contribute, especially in rural areas, where they not only attend to and respond to emergencies but also are expected to go out and raise funds to buy equipment and, in some cases, to even buy firefighting trucks and build the fire halls that those trucks are placed in.

Mr. Speaker, I, today, would like to congratulate those five individuals, and I am sure every member of this Chamber will allow me to say thank you on behalf of every volunteer firefighter in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the year 2005 was designated as the Year of the Veteran, a time for Canadians to reach out and give thanks to the men and women who have served Canada in times of war and peace.

A celebration honouring those who fought in both World Wars and the Korean War was hosted by District 2 of the Royal Canadian Legion in our area. It was indeed a pleasure for me to participate with other members of this hon. House in the planting of a Red Maple Tree, symbolizing the Canadian emblem and the preservation of peace.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge people from the various branches of the Royal Canadian Legion that fall under District 2: Corp. Matthew Brazil, Branch 9, Spaniard's Bay; Harbour Grace, Branch 15; Upper Island Cove, Branch 22; Carbonear, Branch 23; Sgt. Levi Hollett, Branch 39, Blaketown; Brigus, Branch 65; and, Bay Roberts, Branch 32.

Following the tree planting, there was a reception and a dinner honouring the veterans held at the Royal Canadian Legion in Carbonear. During the dinner, a number of presentations were made to veterans by myself and other hon. colleagues in the surrounding districts that cover those Royal Canadian Legions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say congratulations to all the members of those Royal Canadian Legions for congratulating and celebrating with other fellow veterans, not only from my district but all over this wonderful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the Year of the Veteran.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to extend an invitation to my colleagues here in the hon. House to attend the ninth annual Olympics of the North - the 2006 Labrador Winter Games.

This sporting and cultural event takes place every three years and is hosted in the central Labrador town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Some 400 athletes and community co-ordinators from as many as thirty communities will come together from March 12-18, along with almost 650 volunteers, to celebrate the sporting and cultural heritage of Labrador.

Contests will be held in the traditional skill-testing events such as Target Shooting, Dog Sled Racing, Snowmobile Racing, Cross-Country Skiing, Snowshoe Races, Northern Triathlon, Snowshoe Biathlon, and the Labrathon, which is a test of the skill a trapper would need to survive in the bush in the Big Land. As well, many more known events such as Ball Hockey, Volleyball, Darts, Badminton and Table Tennis will take place.

Possibly the marquee event of the Labrador Winter Games would be the Northern Games. This is a four-part competition held over two nights in a packed house at the E. J. Broomfield Arena. This event is made up of the Labrador Hurdles, which is a test of endurance. Over the Rope portion is a grueling test of both strength and endurance as the athletes see who can pass over a taut rope the most times. The Seal Race requires competitors to pull themselves along the course using only their hands in a race format.

The final event is the One Foot High Kick in which athletes kick at a hanging target of seven feet in the air at the outset of the event and increasing in height until only one successful competitor is ultimately proclaimed the winner.

This meeting of the various peoples of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is the pride of Labrador - and in the fellowship that these games inspire and, in most events, second to none in our region and indeed, our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the game's Chairman, Dusty Miller, and the games board, along with a very competent staff, are well underway on the work to ensure that the games will be the best ever. March is a beautiful place in the Big Land and I invite all members of the House and indeed, people throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to come to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and to experience the 2006 Labrador Winter Games.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wish to remind members that their statements, and members' statements, should not exceed ninety seconds, a minute-and-a-half. We had one yesterday that went considerably longer than that and the one we just heard now was considerably longer than the standard time.

In fairness to all members, I ask members to constrain their comments to the ninety seconds. The Speaker does not wish to interrupt during members' statements; however, if he needs to, he will.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House of Assembly today to acknowledge the beginning of the Commonwealth Women's Parliamentarians of Canada.

While many countries around the Commonwealth had organized and prided themselves on very active women's Parliaments for many years now, Canada has been lax in its efforts and failed through the years to form such a valuable entity.

I am pleased to say that this has changed. As parliamentarians from all across Canada met in our Province in July, our Speaker gave a full day of the schedule to women parliamentarians to meet and to constitute the inaugural meeting of the Commonwealth Women's Parliament. As you know, many great initiatives in this country got its start in this young Easterly Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, on July 19, Newfoundland and Labrador took the lead for all women parliamentarians, and for a stronger Parliament in general in our country.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like extend to you my sincere gratitude for your support of our women's Parliament. To this regard, you have led by example and you have encouraged all speakers of legislatures across this country to support the newly founded sector of our Parliament. It was through your inspiring words at the Speakers Table of Canada that all provinces and all territories have accepted and supported this process. As a result of your efforts, the Canadian Parliamentary Association has now agreed to set aside one day of its regional conference each year for women Parliamentarians in this country to discuss their issues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS JONES: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for the length of my statement today, but I think it is very important to acknowledge the inaugural meeting of the Canadian Women's Parliament and the fact that it started this year in our Province.

I would also like to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, and to thank all the women that were involved in this process. I was very pleased myself to represent our Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador at that meeting. I especially would like to thank and acknowledge the contributions of two of my federal counterparts, the Hon. Sam Builte and the Hon. Sue Barnes.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature will formally form our own branch of the Canadian Women's Parliament tomorrow evening at a meeting called by yourself Mr. Speaker.

In concluding, I would like to encourage all my female colleagues of the Legislature to come out to that meeting and to get involved with the Canadian Women's Parliament in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the life and accomplishments of a dedicated and compassionate Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Desmond Dillon of Gander was among the most recent inductees into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Dillon is a renowned volunteer who has served the Canadian Red Cross, Royal Life Saving Society, and the American Red Cross - to name just a few. He has become a noted contributor to the global community, assisting with the California earthquake, flooding in Manitoba, the Swissair disaster, the victims of the Badger flood, and the efforts to help the displaced citizens from around the world after September 11 attack. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, Katrina and the New Orleans disaster.

Mr. Dillon is noted as being a humble man who seeks no recognition for his outstanding accomplishments. In addition to his work all over North America, he has provided great leadership to the Central Regional Health and Community Services board from its inception to the present. As a social worker, he has helped institute changes to the current child care legislation that have bettered the lives of those in need and those who live in poverty in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in congratulating Mr. Desmond Dillon on his induction into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. Members of the House of Assembly of the progress in promoting our offshore oil and gas industry which was discussed during the recent meeting of the Atlantic Energy Roundtable on Wednesday, November 16.

As most people would be aware, the Atlantic Energy Roundtable brings together my colleagues from other Atlantic provinces, federal cabinet ministers, as well industry regulators, labour leaders, in an effort to build a strong and sustainable future for the offshore oil and gas industry in Atlantic Canada and indeed, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since its inception in 2002, both levels of government have worked to respond to industry challenges without compromising our positions on benefits, safety of operations, and the environment.

Among the important accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, resulting from this process are: improvements to the regulatory system which directly reduces exploration and development costs, and developing programs to build and enhance the industrial supply and service capability.

At our meeting last week, the federal government announced amendments to the regulations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, whereby future offshore oil and gas exploratory drill projects would be subject to a more efficient screening type of environmental assessment, rather than the current, more lengthy, comprehensive type of assessment. I am pleased this decision was taken on the basis of sound science and sound public policy. In our view, this is another step forward in making our offshore area an attractive place for exploration investment.

While there has been marked progress, we believe that much more can be done. I took the opportunity last Wednesday to highlight the significant milestones in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore industry. In the last two years these include the continued successes of Hibernia, Terra Nova; first oil at White Rose - on-time and on-budget; the start of preliminary discussions on the development of Hebron-Ben Nevis; the amount of seismic work that has occurred just this past season in the Orphan and Laurentian basins; and, of course, the recent news of more potential at the Hibernia field.

We have heard the concerns from industry and governments, and have moved towards addressing them, Mr. Speaker. Now we believe it is time for industry to step up to the plate and fully recognize the opportunities that are before us in this Province.

We want industry to invest more in exploration activity. We want to see another project go ahead, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and we are in the process of hoping to realize that eventuality. Our past record has indicated that while industry may say our offshore is high risk, there have been proven, successful results on our three producing fields.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to participate in the Atlantic Energy Roundtable to: support ongoing government efforts to renew and modernize the regulatory regime; to build a strategic approach to address priority research and development; and to continue to strengthen our supply and service capabilities.

We will also continue to use this forum to bring our concerns to industry and to the federal government, and it is our hope through this open dialogue we will see more exploration and, as a result, other projects developed, that will reap optimal benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his announcement today.

It is nice to see that this government finally is beginning to acknowledge some of the successes that were made by the former Liberal Administration -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: - and which this government considers worthy of continuation.

First of all, the Roundtable itself being created in 2002 was certainly needed, i.e. you bring the stakeholders together in the industry. Instead of having duplication, everyone who is concerned, whether it be federal government, provincial government, the various energy ministers, the labour sector, get the concerns on the table and you need not have all this red tape and duplication. That was why it was started in the first place, and that is why it is a great idea to continue it. It is a very constructive process. I applaud the government for seeing that there was something worthy that was done by the former administration, and that they will indeed continue.

You need to have streamlining of federal-provincial regulations, and again I am pleased to see this administration acknowledge the success of the former administration when it comes to the White Rose project, on time and on budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: A great project which is now reaping benefits for this Province, because somebody put together a good package a few years ago.

Also, the Laurentian Sub-Basin arbitration which was done on the watch of the Liberal Administration -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: - it is nice to see this government acknowledging the success there. I applaud the government when they give credit when credit is due, and they finally acknowledge that there are some things there, and I hope the Roundtable continues for many, many years to come.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we do have a maturing oil and gas development offshore, it is time for us to examine exactly where we are going with this and what we are getting out of it. We do know that the operating cost for a barrel of oil extraction on the Grand Banks is one-fifth or less what it is on the tar sands, yet our royalties are just the same. These things have to be examined, Mr. Speaker, for the future.

Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud of the White Rose project's first oil the other day. The good news about that is that most of the work was done right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, engineering and fabrication, and that should be the standard for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We do have some problems, Mr. Speaker, on the regulatory side. I mean, yes, it is nice to streamline regulations but we haven't seen a report, one year later on 160,000 litre oil spill off our shore this time last year, yet to have a report as to what happened and what went wrong.

Mr. Speaker, there are things that do need to happen and can happen for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador in our oil and gas industry as it develops. One thing is, we would like to see more refining capacity in this Province. This oil, in its raw state -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested. Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) further points, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

We do need to have more refining capacity in this Province. We see this resource going straight out of the Province to other parts of North America, unprocessed and unrefined. We would like to see more of that happen here.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the gas side, we haven't seen any development yet, although there is some interest. There are some very innovative processes now being talked about and proposed that can see us have natural gas liquids from that reserve actually brought to this Province and processed right here into further developments and further economic activities.

So, these are the kinds of exciting prospects that are there, Mr. Speaker, but it requires a lot of work and a lot of determination on the part of the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to make this happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize November 22 as National Housing Day. In support of this event, this morning I joined community and corporate leaders in the launch of Raising the Roof 2006, downtown St. John's. Through the sales of toques, this national fundraising campaign helps to serve those most at risk for homelessness in our Province and, indeed, the country.

Mr. Speaker, I did take the liberty of taking forty-eight toques with me to the House of Assembly today for all forty-eight members so that you can all purchase them after the House session today at $10.

That there are still people in this day and age without a roof over their heads is a source of concern to all members of our society. The need for housing, not to mention the warm head wear, in a climate such as ours is abundantly clear.

It is up to all of us to act to close the door on homelessness. The key to achieving this goal is to develop community awareness. Raising the Roof is Canada's only national homelessness charity, and last year, Newfoundland and Labrador raised $14,000 to support this campaign. Elected officials, government employees, and volunteers alike, recognize housing as a basic human need. Throughout the winter, as we wear our Raising the Roof toques, we will be reminded of those without a home.

Mr. Speaker, proceeds from this year's toque sales will go to four shelters and supportive housing providers in St. John's: the Stella Burry Community Services, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, the St. John's Native Friendship Centre Association, and the Salvation Army. These organizations have recently built or are building new shelters and supportive housing in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, let me reaffirm that this government is indeed committed to the cause of helping the homeless. Along with the federal government, we have invested millions of dollars in community based homelessness projects in Newfoundland and Labrador. We work closely with many of our partners and community organizations involved with this campaign.

In 2004-2005, in partnership with the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation spent approximately $100 million in support of social housing programs in Newfoundland and Labrador. In St. John's alone, under NLHC's Shelter Enhancement Program, some $300,000 has been provided through partnership with groups such as: the Stella Burry Corporation, Choices for Youth, the Kirby House and Lebra House. Other properties which have been provided funding under the affordable housing program include the Salvation Army's Wiseman Centre here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, we have also announced an increase in the minium wage in our Province. We continue to provide income support in career services. We are finalizing our property reduction strategy. Even so, we much continue to work together towards addressing the homelessness.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I extend congratulations and appreciation to everybody involved with the St. John's Community Advisory Committee on homelessness and to everyone involved with Raising the Roof campaign. Quite simply, your work is making a difference in the lives of those who need it most and we are proud of your efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, but I can assure you, he read out more information than was on the statement that I was delivered. Anyway, I got the gist of it.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to stand - I am glad that our hon. Deputy Premier is in good form again today. I want to congratulate the minister for his involvement in this initiative. It is a good program. I can assure you, we, on this side of the House, support it 100 per cent. We ask the people all throughout this Province to support the sale of the toques this year. We hope that more than $14,000 will be raised this year to help those people.

I, too, want to congratulate the four groups that are listed here: the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, Stella Burry Community Services, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Salvation Army. They do tremendous work and now they are carrying on providing shelters and so on.

Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that all of this is wonderful but we, all of us together collectively, have to look at the problems that are encountering. Homelessness is becoming even a bigger problem in our Province. We have to look at our safety nets; that it is not downgraded. We have to address the roots, where homelessness comes from. Some of them is unemployment; addictions, whether it be drugs, alcohol or VLTs. We know that government is reducing the VLTs by 15 per cent, but we are bringing in KENO.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister, and we on this side congratulate all those involved in this program.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our copy of the minister's statement does not jive with what the minister read either; but, having said that, we would like to wish government and the people involved a successful campaign on the sale of the toques.

Not that many years ago, Mr. Speaker, in our Province, homelessness was something that we read about in the papers, that occurred in other cities. Today, unfortunately, it is here in our Province at an alarming number.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what he has done, or his department has done, to access money from the federal government of a $30 million program for housing that was announced prior to his government taking over. Also, what has government done to access any funding from the $100 million NDP budget that was negotiated with the federal government not that long ago? What have they done in order to access the funding there?

We, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to thank the groups that are identified as being involved, helping people who are homeless, and that includes the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, Stella Burry Community Services, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, and The Salvation Army, Mr. Speaker, who, of course, are active throughout most every community within our Province and do fantastic work.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, Memorial University's Harris Centre released a report on federal government presence in Newfoundland and Labrador. The report provides an independent confirmation of the positions this government has advanced with the federal government on this issue. While I encourage all members to review the report in full, I wish to highlight today a few of the report's findings.

With respect to federal employment, the report - this independent report - confirms that Newfoundland and Labrador has taken more than its fair share of reductions. Over the study period, from 1981 to 2004, federal employment in this Province declined by 25 per cent, compared to a 5 per cent drop nationally.

In August of this year, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, released data which focused on the period between 1990 and 2004. During this period, federal employment in the Province declined by 39 per cent, compared to a decrease of 18 per cent across all provinces. As my hon. colleague rightly pointed out, had this Province experienced an 18 per cent decline only, there would be an additional 2,800 people working in our Province today. It is important to note that this disturbing decline came at a time when our economy was struggling as a result of the groundfish stock collapse.

The report's findings on federal executive positions in the Province also warrant special attention. Our Province had the lowest number of these positions across all provinces over the period 1997 to 2004, and the province's share of federal executives was substantially less than its share of the national population. Nova Scotia, with less than twice the population of our province, has four times as many executive positions. P.E.I. and Newfoundland have almost the same number of executive positions, notwithstanding the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador has four times the population.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the trends identified by these numbers continue to be reflected in decisions by the federal government. This Province has stood united against federal decisions such as the removal of forecasting services from the Gander Weather Office and the impending closure of the Public Service Commission of Canada's provincial office. Faced with an independent confirmation of our concerns, it is clear that the federal government must begin to rebuild its presence in this Province. This government stands ready to work co-operatively and collaboratively with the federal government to increase federal presence in ways that serve the interests of both Newfoundland and Labrador and of Canada, so that we can realize the dream that all of us share of a proud and prosperous Newfoundland and Labrador within a strong and united Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would certainly like to thank the Harris Centre for undertaking an independent study of this critically important issue.

Thank you.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. I encourage him to continue to fight with the federal government to protect services and jobs in this Province. It is an age-old problem, as the minister said. Even in this study alone they talked about going back to 1981. What I have found, my experience has been, it does not seem to matter whether it is a Tory government in Ottawa or Liberal government in Ottawa; the cuts continue. Two of the main ones, at least from my perspective, representing a rural riding based in the fishery, are the cuts to the science branch of DFO and other divisions at DFO as well as the closing of the Gander Weather Office.

What I find hypocritical about this government up today talking about cuts to the federal civil service in the Province is, just in the last two years they have eliminated hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the civil service in this Province and they have cut many services to the people in parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I will just mention a few: the closure of HRE offices around the Province; the closure of highway depots, and we have seen the results of those kind of closures and cuts just recently. We see courthouses go. We see school board offices, health care boards being eliminated, weigh scales, and the list goes on and on. So, I say to the minister, you should look in the mirror sometimes when you are condemning others. You should look in the mirror and see what you are doing yourself.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This report confirms what has been well known in this Province for some time, that the commitment of the Government of Canada to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the form of employment is nothing short of disgrace, and that is symbolized by the recent departure of the Public Service Commission from this Province, the very organization that gives people access to federal jobs and provides an opportunity for people to get resumes considered or to obtain information, taken away from this Province within the last year. As the report points out, over the last number of years, 25 per cent of the federal jobs have gone. It is an absolute disgrace.

I would urge this government to do what it did on the eve of the last election, and ask the federal parties and the federal leaders to give their commitment to this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the upcoming election as to what they propose to do to try and redress this disgrace, redress this wrong, because it is something that shows a level of disdain for the people of this Province when it comes to federal employment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: When it shows, Mr. Speaker, is that not only have we lost more jobs than the rest of Canada during this period, but when employment started increasing across the country by about 12 per cent, the increase in this Province was only 1 per cent. So, this shows a definite, not only a trend but almost an intentional action by the Government of Canada to ensure that there are fewer federal civil servants in this Province than there are in the rest of the country. That has to stop and that has to be fixed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Yesterday, I referenced a media report from the Eastern Daily Express, a British newspaper that discussed FPI's recent purchase of the seafood company in Great Britain. In the article, it stated that these operations would grow and expand as a result of FPI importing Canadian fish for processing to Great Britain. Nowhere in this article did it say that these operations would be processing shrimp from Canada. The only reference to shrimp was warm water shrimp and, I say to the minister, we do not have warm water shrimp in the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister now tell me if FPI intends to ship shrimp from Newfoundland and Labrador to Great Britain for processing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I take no responsibility for any article written in some press in the United Kingdom. What I know is that FPI is making a concentrated effort to break into the largest cold water shrimp market in the world, which is the United Kingdom, and cold water shrimp is what FPI intends to market in Great Britain and in other parts of the European Union.

The other thing I say to the hon. gentleman is this: The same rules and regulations that were attached to licences when he was a minister and when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was a minister are attached to licences today, and that is this: No shrimp can go out of this Province, once it is landed in the Province, without being cooked and peeled in this Province, and that has not changed and will not change, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are finally getting a response from the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the only way to avoid a tariff on shrimp going into the European Union is to have it processed in Europe. Is this what FPI intends to do with its offshore quota for shrimp? Not the stuff that is landed by FPI and processed here in the Province, but, as you know, Minister, FPI has two licences for 6,000 tons of shrimp. Is that the shrimp you are talking about that is going to be going into the EU for further processing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that and more. FPI markets for Daley's, FPI markets shrimp for Beothic Fisheries.

MR. BARRETT: Not any more.

MR. RIDEOUT: They do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Bellevue never knew what he was talking about, and he certainly does not know today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, they market for shrimp companies in Quebec, for other shrimp processors in this Province, for a whole array of processors, Mr. Speaker, so that is where they are trying to go with this and that is why this move is good for the industry and it is good for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that the biggest problem we are having with shrimp going into the EU is the 20 per cent tariff on cooked and peeled shrimp.

Mr. Speaker, last night I spoke to three processors in this Province who process shrimp and they all agreed that the only way that FPI could get shrimp into the UK or into the European Union without a tariff was to have the shrimp processed in Europe.

This morning, I spoke to Mr. Patrick McGuinness of the Fisheries Council of Canada - and I can give you his telephone number if you want it - and he confirmed what these processors said, that the only way we could get shrimp into the U.K. by avoiding the tariff was to have it processed in the U.K.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How will shipping of unprocessed shrimp to Great Britain help create jobs in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, FPI's marketing strategy, by acquiring this company in Great Britain, is to do something about the 20 per cent tariff. There is no question about that. The shrimp will go into the United Kingdom cooked and peeled, as I said. When you get it into the United Kingdom, in order to qualify for a reduction from 20 per cent to 6 per cent, which is an advantage, by the way, of 14 per cent - and the Leader of the Opposition said publicly there was no advantage at all - you have to do something else with it. For example, in the past it has been brined, for example, in the Netherlands. That could be done by this company in Great Britain. That would qualify that product for a lower tariff in Europe. That is the kind of strategy, Mr. Speaker, this company is working on, that is the kind of strategy that will help impact positively the shrimp production and processing in this Province, in rural parts of this Province, and that is why it is worthy of support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: (Inaudible) what he is talking about. Companies in this Province have tried to do exactly what he is saying, by taking processed shrimp from this Province and having it glazed in the EU, but it didn't work. We can't avoid the tariff. Nothing of what you just said is going to help lower the tariff on shrimp going in from that Province.

Mr. Speaker, to change gears just a little: Last spring on the Fisheries Broadcast, when asked a question on what the future entailed for FPI in this Province, Mr. Derrick Rowe, the CEO of FPI, stated that FPI will become a shellfish operation. That is what he said, that the future for FPI will be a shellfish operation.

I ask the minister: If this is the case, what will happen to Fortune, Marystown and Burin? Have you discussed the future of these towns with the Board of Directors of FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, here is what is not going to happen. Is any fish being shipped into Europe for processing the fish that was traditionally processed in Newfoundland and Labrador? I asked the Opposition in the press release yesterday, Mr. Speaker. No there is not, no there is not going to be. What is happening here relates to shrimp only, shrimp processed in this Province, shrimp processed by FPI, shrimp processed by other processors in the Province, and it is a marketing strategy for Europe.

Mr. Speaker, we should be wishing the company success, we should be hoping that the company succeeds, so that they can create employment and sustain employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to FPI, the members of their board and their acting CEO, about Fortune, about Harbour Breton, about Bonavista, about Port au Choix, about Marystown, about everywhere that they operate in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: And what did you find out?

Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not told the people of this Province how the purchase of this plant in Great Britain is going to benefit the people in this Province. He is not going to bring processed shrimp from Newfoundland and Labrador into the EU and avoid a tariff by doing it.

Mr. Speaker, when in Opposition, this minister and his colleagues accused us of doing nothing to monitor FPI. I can tell the minister that when FPI tried to lay off 700 people, they did not do it under our watch. That is more than I can say is happening under your watch.

I ask the minister: Why is this government being so lax with regard to monitoring FPI and allowing this company to do everything they want with their operations, including taking our products to the UK for processing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, not because the Opposition say something is a fact it is a fact. As a matter of fact, when the Opposition says something is a fact in this Province - Mr. Speaker, Russell Wangersky had it right: when this hon. crowd puts out a press release quoting something to be a fact, you had better employ somebody to go research it.

This Opposition, in my almost thirty years in this House, is the most irresponsible, the most ineffective, the most uncaring, the worst Opposition, Mr. Speaker, in thirty years in Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all members that our time is elapsing.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries can use those old-time political antics all he wants, of screaming, shouting, and insulting people, but I will tell the minister that I am going to continue to ask the questions on behalf of the people of this Province and we will get the answers even if they do not come from you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about Mr. Wangersky. Mr. Wangersky is having the same problem with that government as I am, that he cannot get an answer from them. That is the reason he is taking you to court, to get information that you will not release to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, outside of this House, this Minister of Fisheries said that an inquiry into FPI would not happen before the company's internal review was complete. He continuously states that he is all over the file; yet, he is allowing the company to do a review that could result in plant closures and hundreds of jobs lost. What kind of oversight is this on behalf of the government?

I ask the minister: If you are all over this file, why are you not willing to do an inquiry before it is too late, before plants are closed and people are laid off? (Inaudible) you are all over the file?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House in 1982 with an Opposition that was decimated to eight people, but with John Efford they were more effective than all that hon. crowd put together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I said in this House yesterday that there may be grounds for an inquiry. I am not saying there will not be at the end of the day, but neither am I prepared to say today that there will be an inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as the general public are well aware, our highways are not maintained to the same level as they have been in past years. With the closure of thirteen depots, and the layoff of over 100 workers, it has a detrimental effect on our highways. The former minister stated on November 7, 2005, that equipment operators on the West Coast were called back, and on the Avalon should be recalled by next week. The current minister has stated that the workers in the Avalon region will not be called back to work until December 1, and only 80 per cent of equipment is operational. Which minister has given the correct information - the current minister or the former minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, here is an example of integrity in research. The hon. gentleman who just asked the question is the worst researcher that I have ever come across in my political career. The fact of the matter is - first fact, Mr. Speaker, there is not a depot closed down in this Province today that was not closed down last year. All the depots that were winterized are now back on stream. Second fact, all of the employees who were put on temporary layoff - 101 or 102 of them, whatever it was - every single one of them have been recalled. Therefore, nothing that the hon. gentleman said was factual but that do not surprise me, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. gentleman would not want the truth or a fact to stick in the way of what he is trying to do here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish that was all ‘backupable', what the minister just said, because I cannot find it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, to justify the closure of these thirteen depots, the former and current minister has given many different versions of events to justify the lack of maintenance on the highways equipment. With the winter season upon us, snow and ice is on our roads and I ask the minister: How many positions which would be working on the maintenance of highways are not filled in the maintenance department of the Department of Transportation and Works?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, here is what is ‘backupable': We have spent $40 million more on highway maintenance and pavement in this Province than that hon. crowd did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We have a $50 million program to resurface 25 per cent of the Trans-Canada Highway. ‘Backupable', Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We are spending $40 million on the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway. ‘Backupable', Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We, Mr. Speaker, have gotten the Trans-Labrador Highway into the National Highway System.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We have gotten Botwood into the National Highway System, parts of Route 430 into the Trans-Canada Highway system, all ‘backupable', and we are proud of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if this wasn't such a serious issue, I guess we all could laugh.

When I have in my hand nineteen positions for maintenance workers who are supposed to be back on highways, protecting our equipment, putting our equipment on our roads, when I am out in the Bay of Island this last weekend with four pieces of equipment down because there is no one to do the work, it is not laughable, Mr. Minister. It is not laughable, I can assure you that. You can rant and rave, but go out on the highways and check it out yourself.

Mr. Speaker, following reports that were in the public domain on the Argentia Access Road, the minister stated publicly, by reading the accident report, that the road was dry. It was later found out that the report submitted by the supervisor indicates that this was not the case.

I want to ask the minister to table the actual report on the road conditions that morning, to show that the information he is putting out is, indeed, based upon facts at the time. Will he table that report here in this House today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that will be a decision for the present minister and I will certainly make sure that the minister understands that request was made here in the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see the minister is finally getting serious and realizes the seriousness of this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the truck from Placentia that is supposed to do the roads was broken down due to the broken lights. Like in other regions of the Province, this truck was not operational due to staffing cutbacks and late recalls in the department that prevented maintenance from being done earlier.

Will the minister produce to the House the work order that shows the maintenance to this vehicle was not completed and it was not inoperable at the time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when serious questions are raised by the Opposition they will get serious answers. When questions are laced with political rhetoric, political innuendo, things that are not facts, untruths, irresponsible statements, they will be answered by this side in the same vein.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is getting on with there, again, is not factual.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I said it is not factual and therefore, the maintenance work has been done. There is maintenance to be done all the time. Let me tell the hon gentleman, we doubled the budget for capital equipment acquisition this year, from $3.25 million to $6.5 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: There are thirty new pieces of equipment, Mr. Speaker!

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Prove it? There are thirty new pieces of equipment being delivered to the Province as we speak. It did not happen on their watch, Mr. Speaker. The roads were falling apart; the equipment was falling apart. Nothing (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, when the Stephenville mill issue came to the forefront this past summer it was primarily over the energy cost issue, and there were two parties involved: Abitibi and government. This cumulated into the framework agreement which was announced on October 26, which government unilaterally announced and then walked away, only to watch the company bring the union into the fray and attempt to strip the union contract.

What have you, or your government, done since October 26 to bring this to an end? The Premier is touted as a great negotiator. When are you going to close this deal and stop the torture of the employees in that community?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, what is going on in Stephenville between the company and their union, really - and I will quote the Leader of the Opposition on a television interview - is basically torture of a people in a region.

First of all, the assumption that you make, I say to the Opposition House Leader, that this is somehow our ability to close this, is incorrect. We have done what was necessary in order to keep that mill open, supported by the local community, supported by the local union, I say to members opposite, and that is the framework agreement that we put forward.

I agree, also, I say to the Opposition House Leader, as the Premier and myself and my colleague, Minister Burke, and my colleague, Mr. Hodder, have said to the union in Stephenville time and time again that this government is not going to participate with a corporation like Abitibi to put pressure on the unionized employees to go in and strip a contract, or attempt to strip a contract, that was duly negotiated a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, that we are in touch on a daily basis with those who are involved, particularly our unionized officials. The negotiation is ongoing between the employer and the employee, but I want to assure everyone in the Stephenville region, in particular the unionized employees and those who depend for their livelihoods on it, that this government did exactly what we were supposed to do. We anted up for the people in Stephenville and we are not going to stand by and watch a company (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not good enough. The Premier has washed his hands of this file now. He does not want to be all over this file any longer. Government cannot wash its hands of the file and you cannot simply say we tried. To try and not to succeed still adds up to failure.

When are you going to close this deal? When will the people of this Province, and in particular, the people of Stephenville, know that they have some hope? What are the options? Will you tell the people of this Province and the people of the Bay St. George area, what are the options and what are you doing minister to close this deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition need to come to a truthful conclusion on where they are. The middle of August, the Leader of the Opposition says: essentially, we must do whatever is necessary, as a government, to ensure there is a power contract. Quoted in statements that I can table for him if he wants to see them - which we did. We entered into that arrangement. We provided exactly what the company was looking for with respect to a power arrangement, which was a net $10 million benefit a year.

The day that we announced that, the Leader of the Opposition - I suppose he represents everybody over there - gets out and says that he has a bitter taste in his mouth because he did not think we should do that. So, which is it? The fact of the matter is - which is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Do we support the arrangements or do we not? Because if it was left in his hands we would not even be in a position to talk about it today.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the negotiations that are going on behind or between the employer and the unionized officials, the unionized officials and bodies in that mill understand intimately where this government is, and that is squarely behind them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The latest financial data, public information, put out by Abitibi, indicated that the company has already taken a write down on certain company assets, which includes the Stephenville assets. Does this mean the company has written off Stephenville? Has government also written off Stephenville? If not, when is government going to stop what has been its ostrich mode since October 26, take its head out of the sand and speak to Abitibi and get this moving again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this government has always doubted the sincerity with respect to the company's objectives. That is why we have challenged them both publicly and privately, and will continue to do so. But what the people in the Stephenville region need not be concerned about was: Where were we? We anted up. We made an arrangement that keeps, what we felt, was the (inaudible) from Abitibi.

The fact of the matter is this, that if you want to look at the type of corporation we are dealing with, I say to my hon. colleague, look at what they did in your own colleague's district just two weeks ago. On one Monday, they went in and said: We are keeping Number 7 machine going for two years and we are going to make a $60 million investment. That was on one Monday. On the second Monday, another spokesperson comes out and says: There must be some misunderstanding here. The fact of the matter is, that on one Monday they went in, in good faith, told the union locals, the community leadership and then the Concerned Citizens Committee one thing and then told us that as well, and on the following Monday told a completely different story. That is the type of company we are dealing with. I ask you, and members opposite, we have done whatever we can and will continue to do whatever we can but members in this House must stand against -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - (inaudible) companies of this nature.

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 Environment and Conservation.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, about half-an-hour before the House started, announced a program on residential energy efficiency that will not start until January in some cases, in February in other cases, of next year, which is worth about $7 million over five years; a total program for this Province of about one-third of what Nova Scotia has done.

Why did the minister wait until now to do it, and what thermometer is he operating on so that he is going to wait until January or February of next year to have an energy efficiency program for houses in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the member for his question, but I have to correct some inaccuracies, Mr. Speaker.

The program that was announced in this Province for the energy conservation portion of the program is $6.9 million. The program announced in Nova Scotia for energy conservation is $10 million. They have twice the population we do. Our per capita spending for the same program is $13, whereas theirs is $11. We are in a better position than Nova Scotia for the program that I have announced today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The program in Nova Scotia was $25 million for home rebate and efficiency programs, and is being all spent at once. He is talking about something over a five-year period, which works out to about $1.2 million or $1.4 million this year, starting some time in January and February.

The Nova Scotia program and the P.E.I. program have elements such as a free energy audit, a free programable thermostat, and also, in some cases, in the case of P.E.I., for example, someone trained already, since October, going into your home and performing an actual upgrade. Why didn't he choose elements like that, Mr. Speaker, that could actually deliver this program before the winter heat season gets really upon us?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this program that we are announcing is a long-term plan, it is a multiple-year plan. The program in Nova Scotia, as well, is a multiple-year plan. We are announcing $6.9 million on energy conservation, $9 million on rebates, which puts us very close to what Nova Scotia is announcing when you take out the $10 million that they have put aside for upgrading government buildings. What we are doing for upgrading government buildings is in a different pot of cash, not included in the Residential Energy Efficiency Program that we have announced today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the P.E.I. program, started over a month ago, has already trained individuals who are available to go into people's houses, do the energy upgrade, and probably have already completed the energy upgrade in many cases, long before the heavy home heating season has started. Why did this government wait until now, and why are they putting it off until January and February of next year? Are they trying to save money? Are they trying to postpone spending money? Why aren't they doing what is needed for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador right now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The program that we have announced today will start in less than two months from now. I think the program that we have announced today is a very solid program; it is a very effective program. The program that we have announced today is a multiple-year program. We have put together an interdepartmental committee that is chaired by my department to look at how we can add to the program for next year.

Mr. Speaker, the program that we have announced today is tied - as well, the $1000 top-up is tied to the federal program, which does not start until January of 2006. They are providing $3,500 for residents on the Island, $5,000 for residents in Labrador. We have agreed to top that program up by $1,000, and that is the reason for the time frames.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have just the one question, and very straightforward question, directed to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I ask the minister: Where is the watch, and where is the appraisal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to that, the watch is in my possession.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. HEDDERSON: I am trying to give a timely response here, Mr. Speaker, in saying to the hon. member on the other side, that watch is in my possession - a watch that was given to me as a protocol gift, as a Minister of the Crown; a watch that I received graciously; a watch that I certainly took great pleasure in receiving by the very fact that it was given to me on behalf of the Government of Qatar. It is still in my possession.

Again, through the conflict of interest that I have put in last March, the hon. member knows that the commissioner has indicated that there was nothing that I did improperly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not want to interrupt Question Period, but I have to bring to your attention a statement made by the Government House Leader.

In an earlier statement, he said that I made a comment that government should not make an agreement with Abitibi that entailed giving the company $150 million.

Mr. Speaker, at no time did I ever make that comment. I ask the minister to rise now and withdraw this statement because it is completely false.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume the member is rising on a point of order to make his statement. I am not sure whether there is any response to the point of order from the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: In this particular matter, members will know that there are occasions when points are made in the House that the Chair cannot verify these comments, and the point of order fails because sometimes we have to accept two different versions of the same event in these particular matters, so the Chair rules there is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. Tabling of Documents. Notices of Motion.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Dietetics". (Bill 51)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Dispensing Opticians." (Bill 52)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Registration And Licensing Of Hearing Aid Practitioners". (Bill 53)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Licensure Of Practical Nurses". (Bill 54)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy". (Bill 55)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Occupational Therapists". (Bill 56)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Psychologists". (Bill 57)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 2004". (Bill 58)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act". (Bill 59)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on the topic I presented one on yesterday which is Sunday hunting.

The petition reads, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS hunting on Sunday is not permitted in our Province; and

WHEREAS there are many people in our Province who work Monday to Friday, leaving them only one day a week to hunt; and

WHEREAS hunting is probably the only activity that people of our Province are prohibited from doing on Sunday; and

WHEREAS not being able to hunt on Sunday has a negative impact on local hunters and outfitters;

We the undersigned residents petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to change the regulations of this Province to allow hunting on Sunday to take place.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday on this topic and I used a few examples as to how people are inconvenienced when they are not permitted to hunt on Sunday. Mr. Speaker, it also plays a big role in the outfitters of this Province as well, when they have people who pay big dollars to come to this Province to hunt, and they hire a lot of people to work in their -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Labrador West. I wonder if members could keep their conversations at a lower level so we can all enjoy the hon. member's presentation.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, these outfitters employ a lot of people in this Province for short durations, particularly during the fall and winter season. Not being able to hunt on Sunday certainly creates a problem for them as well; but, more to the point - and I know there are some people who may be against hunting on Sunday, but I think the minister, through his department and in collaboration with other Members of the House of Assembly, can come to some arrangement that will be suitable to all.

I ask the minister to undertake to do this as soon as possible because the hunting season for this year, for big game on the Island, is drawing to a close; however, the hunting for big game in Labrador is only about to begin and will carry on throughout the winter. So, it is important that the minister take action on this immediately so that we are not subject to the same rules and regulations that we have been for the past number of years, whereby you travel a great distance on a Friday night, you hunt all day Saturday without success, and on the way back Sunday morning you are 100 miles from anywhere, the only people you will run into, if anyone, are other hunters. If you happen to see big game on your way back, simply because it is Sunday, you are not allowed to take your gun out of the case and get your animal. That does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, and it is time that this government recognize that and introduce the change that is necessary so that people are allowed to hunt on Sundays, in accordance with the change in the regulation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

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

I think we are going to begin some progress on second readings this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46, 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 46)

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition said that I had made an accusation that he never supported the arrangement. I do want to make an apology to the Leader of the Opposition. It was not him who said it. It was his colleague, Yvonne Jones - so I do apologize - when she said: I don't think we are in any position in this Province to be offering out $200 million or $300 million to prop up any company.

I apologize, Sir. It was not you who said it; it was your colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, again the Chair rules that there is no point of order; however, the Chair appreciates any clarifications that can be made.

The Chair has called second reading of Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act.

I recognize, I do believe, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this amendment is very brief. It is just to clarify the current wording of the act. In fact, we feel the authority is there under the Loan Act already. It has been an area where it has occasionally been raised, and certainly in the AG's report, whether it should be included as a provision under the Financial Administration Act. This will eliminate the requirement to include it in the Loan Act, and it will authorize the borrowing authority for sinking fund purposes. When you borrow for a sinking fund, really, in a sense, it is debt retirement; because, as you borrow for sinking funds, the sinking funds are put aside to go toward debt retirement, so it is very straightforward, a housekeeping rule.

I do not have any further comments. It is only a one-paragraph aspect and it is very straightforward.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Thank him for the red cap first.

MS THISTLE: Yes, first, before I start, I would like to thank the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, because they have chosen a great colour this year for those hats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I acknowledge that these caps may be very attractive, but I am sure that we should not use them as props in the House.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly use it to my advantage - thank you - outside the House.

I would like to make a couple of comments on Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance: What is the value of funds that are currently in our sinking fund? Is there any indication by this government to transfer any of these sinking fund revenues to our current long-term debt? I do not know if he has heard my question or not. I do not know if he has heard my question, but I would like to ask the Minister of Finance: Is there an intention of this government to use any of the sinking funds that are currently in our Treasury to pay off our long-term debt? I would like to ask him that question first.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that, this being second reading, we are debating the general principle of the bill; however, if members wish to do an exchange, they can with leave.

I turn the floor to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I guess it is not entirely necessary at this point if the minister does not wish to answer, but I think it was pretty minor. I was interested in finding out the value of the current funds that are now in our sinking funds sector of government Treasury and, also, if there is any intention by this government to use that money to pay off long-term debt.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave, the minister can answer now or he can wait, because if speaks now he may close debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I do understand an agreement has been reached.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister who was once responsible for the Financial Administration Act should know that every single bit of money put into sinking funds is put there to pay the debt when the debt comes due. That is what sinking funds are all about. So, sinking funds are used to pay off debt. I said in the beginning, we are not changing anything. All we are doing is, we are getting authority, where the administration act is now in the Loan Act - it is just to clarify. It is a simple procedure. It has nothing to do with putting funds there.

All sinking funds, there are statutory requirements under the act to put aside money under sinking funds to pay debt when it comes due, and each year we will allocate money in the sinking funds, $40 million or $45 million, whatever the case may be, and when the debt comes due we have allocated money to be able to retire that debt when it comes due. That is the nature of sinking funds. That has been in since before I came into this House. It is still there. There are no changes there, absolutely no other thing. It is only the authority under the Financial Administration Act, we are making that particular amendment. There is nothing changed with it. I am sure the member should know how that operates under sinking funds. The question she implied is: Are we going to use it? Absolutely, just the purpose of what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, to continue to speak on second reading.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, as the minister just alluded to, this is a housekeeping issue, this particular bill that is now before the House. Yes, there are many occasions when the sinking funds that have been allotted for a certain debt are over and above the required amount and many times an extra payment will be made to the long-term debt, but I will get into more questions of this nature as we get into the next reading.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I apologize to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I do believe he wishes to speak to this particular bill.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't sure, when we were preparing to have questions and answers back and forth, whether the critic was actually finished speaking. I did want to have a few words to say on this piece of legislation, it being a financial piece of legislation having to do with the provincial debt. I want to talk about that, and about the debt as well.

First of all, though, before I start, I want to thank the Government House Leader for his kind remarks yesterday, when he rose to speak on my recent announcement that I would be resigning from the leadership of my party, and asking our party to have a procedure in place to select a new leader. I do want to thank him for his kind remarks yesterday.

While I am still here, Mr. Speaker, I do intend to carry on in the kind of vigorous debate that we have been participating in since I have been here, since 1990, and in that regard on this particular bill which is related to how this government manages the debt of the Province in terms of establishing sinking funds, the bill itself seems, to me, to be an appropriate way to ensure that we can provide sinking funds to look after our provincial debt. It is an important way to do things.

Some of the obligations that the Province have are not paid off like a mortgage, Mr. Speaker. We do not pay blended principle and interest on our debt. We have bonds that might come due all at once in ten years time or six years time or five years time, and the sinking fund is a form of savings account that is built up over a time so that when the time comes to pay off or roll over the debt, there is a substantial portion of capital there to roll into the payment of that debt.

So, a sinking fund is a fancy government finance term for a savings account of some kind that money is put into over time so that when the full principal balance of a bond becomes due, that money is there to pay off that debt. It is a part of the way that debt is managed by the Province and the income from those Sinking Funds offsets our borrowing costs over time. Mr. Speaker, it is a positive thing and when we are doing our borrowing we should be able to adjust the Sinking Funds while we are at it.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say something about our provincial debt because our Minister of Finance loves to talk about the debt. You would not know but he liked the debt, Mr. Speaker, the way he talks about it so much.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to get rid of it.

MR. HARRIS: He says he would like to get rid of it but I have not heard him say anything about what he is going to do to get rid of it when it comes to the most significant part of our debt, the one that is out of control, the one that we have not reigned in, and this government has not reigned in, and that is the unfunded pension liability. The minister has been there for two years. For two years, Mr. Speaker, he has been there and he talks about the debt. He has used this as an excuse to take away a provision that the previous government put in, for example, to ensure that there were not going to be school fees in our Province. He used the debt as an excuse to take away drugs that had been put on the formulary to help people who have Alzheimer's. He has used it as an excuse not to expand programs that are necessary to help people in this Province. But, Mr. Speaker, the debt that we have today has to be understood, because the debt that we have today comes in three parts. We have to talk about it that way, Mr. Speaker, because there are three significant, separate, different parts to our debt. When you add them all up, it looks pretty grim, but when you divide them up into parts, it looks like it can be managed and can be fixed.

Let me talk about those three parts of the debt because the three parts are found pretty easily, Mr. Speaker, or two of them are anyway; two of them are found pretty easily in our Budget. When the Estimates come out every budget year - last spring they came out and the debt is set out in an Exhibit to the Estimates. It is called the Public Sector Debt. That includes a number called the Provincial Direct Debt, which is $7.2 million. It sounds like a lot of money, but in relation to the debt of this Province over the last dozen years, in fact, it has not kept pace at all with our revenues. Our revenues have grown much faster than this debt. As a percentage of our GDP, in fact, the provincial debt is down considerably, and that is an important measure, as the Minister of Finance knows. This was remarked upon by the financial advisors back in the spring, that the reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio has been reduced by 20 per cent. So, that is a significant fact. Our public sector debt, our direct debt is, in fact, extremely manageable in terms of our interest costs going down as a percentage of our revenue year after year.

Another portion of our debt is called the Crown Corporation and Other Debt. Now, the majority of that, Mr. Speaker, is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro debt. I want to just say that, yes, this is part of the Province's overall responsibility. If Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were to be unable to pay the debt, the Province is on the hook as a guarantor for that debt. But, in fact, the Province makes money on that debt. They make money on it. There is a guarantee fee of 1 per cent paid by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the government every year for that debt. It may be worth $100 million, or more. Every year the government is making money on that debt. So, let's not call that a problem. That is, in fact, probably - from the Province's point of view, fiscally speaking - an asset. It earns revenue for this Province, for the taxpayers. Now people have to pay their bills. People have to pay their electric bills because it is the customers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who pay that debt and are responsible for that debt primarily, not the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is $1.4 billion of the debt.

There is other debt, Mr. Speaker, that is guaranteed by the government in terms of housing, student loans, municipalities. In fact, even debt that the government does not guarantee, like the City of St. John's, for example. Even debt that the government does not guarantee is listed here as part of the public debt of the Province. So, when the minister wants to talk about how bad things are and raises the number as high as he can, he includes debt that the government is not even responsible for. Now, that does not mean to say that if for some reason the City of St. John's got into trouble, was about to default on their debt, that the Province would not step in. That is not to say that it would not happen, but it is not something that the Province is directly responsible for and the taxpayers had to reach into their pockets each and every year to look after and to manage. So, it is wrong to say that it is a burden on the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, it is there. It is what is called a contingent liability.

So, if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were somehow to go bankrupt, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have to pick up the pieces. Well, that is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro debt makes money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but that is another $2.6 billion. So, we have $7.2 billion and $2.6 billion. When you add them together you get $9.8 billion. But, guess what, Mr. Speaker? Something that we just talked about, Sinking Funds. They are Sinking Funds that this bill is about. They are $1.3 billion in Sinking Funds. Now, that is in the savings. We are not even talking about the $2 billion that the minister picked up last summer. There is $1.3 billion in Sinking Funds, our savings account. That $1.3 billion has to be subtracted from the public debt. So we are down, in terms of the actual provincial direct debt, to less than $6 billion. That is the mortgage. That is the one we have to pay the mortgage on. That is the one we are paying interest on every year, $6 billion, and the interest on that is being reduced every single year as a percentage of our revenues, is down now to around 12 per cent, and it has been reducing every year for the past number of years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the actual money that the Province owes. Now, there is another number - and this is the one that is used to frighten people, to frighten the animals, Mr. Speaker, the one the minister likes to talk about but does nothing about. He talks about it, and maybe when he speaks to close debate he will tell us what he is going to do about it. I hope he does because he has not told the people of the Province yet. Maybe he can tell the House this afternoon. We have something called unfunded liabilities. This is not something that came upon us yesterday. It was not discovered yesterday. The accountants started putting it on the books only two years ago, Mr. Speaker. It never even showed up on the books. The unfunded pension liability - the legacy of governments of the past actually spending the money that they were supposed to be contributing to the pension funds.

So, going back to the 1960s and the 1970s, when the government was incurring pension liabilities for its staff and for teachers, the government was taking from people's salaries a pension contribution and they were spending it. They were using it to pave roads, to build schools. They were using that money. They did not put it in a fund. They did not put it in a pension fund. There was no such thing as a pension fund. There were pension obligations but no pension fund. That did not change until the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, and in the 1980s the government set up a pension fund, but what did they put into it? They only put into it the contributions that they were taking from people's checks. They put that into a fund and that became the pension fund. If a government employee or a school teacher was making a pension contribution equal to 3 per cent, 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 7 per cent of their wages, that money was taken out of their check and put into a pension fund. The government contribution which was supposed to be equal to that was never put in. We have a shortfall that has grown over the years and it has gotten bigger over the years. Of course, eventually the accountants got around to insisting that governments across the country actually look at this as an obligation and something that should reflect upon government's credit worthiness because of their willingness or unwillingness or ability to look after and finance their pension obligations.

This is not the first government to talk about it. I remember being in this House back in 1990 when former Premier Clyde Wells talked about unfunded pension liabilities. We have been talking about it for a long time and we have done some things about it. We have increased the contribution rate for many pensions. We have almost, and I say almost, fixed one of the pensions. The Public Service Pension Plan is almost fixed, and a lot of credit for that has to go -

AN HON. MEMBER: To Brian Tobin.

MR. HARRIS: The member says Brian Tobin. I would say a lot of credit for that has to go to the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees who, together, brought in actuaries as part of a negotiating effort in 2001 and showed the government how they could fix that plan over a thirty-five year period. That plan, with the exception of some tweaking that this minister I am sure knows all about and is going to tell us about in a minute -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He wants to do an awful lot of tweaking but that is alright. Maybe he is going to do it, maybe he has a plan, because he has not told anyone about it for the last two years. He has been there for two years. In fact, two years ago, and this is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, two years ago - I may be running out of time but I am sure hon. members opposite will give me some leave if I am. Let's talk about plans, because two years ago in November of 2003 when this government took office the Minister of Finance was very concerned about the financial picture of the Province, and well he might be, Mr. Speaker. We were all concerned about the financial picture of the Province. In fact in the last election all three parties committed, Mr. Speaker, to balancing the budget over a four year period.

Let me tell you what the Minister of Finance said in November of 2003, very shortly after he was sworn into office as the Minister of Finance. He said that he expected the Province's accrued deficit to be in the range of $750 million. He said: Whether that is realistic or whether we will exceed that we will certainly see in due course. It is not a bright picture. Then he said: What we are going to do over the next four years is we are going to actually have a balanced budget on the cash consolidated side. On the consolidated cash side over four years we are going to have - the first Tory budget will have a deficit, but there is to be a balanced budget in four years time on a cash consolidated basis.

Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? Well, we have two parts of our budget. We have the cash budget and we have what is called the accrual budget. The accrual budget is what you owe, what you owe every time you undertake an expenditure. Let's say, for example, you have an unfunded teachers' pension, and if you hire a twenty-three year old teacher tomorrow you have to add to your deficit, you have to add to your provincial debt. The former Auditor General knows that. If you hire a school teacher today, you have to add a certain figure, and an actuary will tell you exactly how much you have to add to your provincial debt, because in thirty years time when that teacher retires you are not going to have enough money there at the current rate of contribution to pay that teacher's pension in thirty years time. That is what the accrual budget is all about.

That is the one that this minister announced the other day. That is the one that he announced the other day that is all taken care of for this year. In fact he has a $1.5 million surplus projected for this year based on that accrual budget. This is a long-term thirty years of problems that he has solved for this year based on the windfall that he received since last March; way, way ahead of schedule, Mr. Speaker. That is something that we were all hoping to do in eight years, and it is done now. What that means - and this is very important. These are long-term problems and some of them require long-term solutions. I think the minister will acknowledge that.

When you look at the solution to the unfunded pension liability in the Public Service Pension Plan there was a thirty-year solution; a certain contribution to be made by the employees, a certain contribution being made by the government on an ongoing basis, and the government being required to put in extra money every year. I think it was in the order of $70 million. If they did that every year for the next thirty years that would, for the most part, solve the unfunded liability in the Public Service Pension Plan. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the employees and the public service are actually paying more than it would take to satisfy the actuarial demands of their pension to make up for what governments of the past did not do. There have to be some adjustments and the minister is going to tell us about that in a minute, because they did not adjust for the increase in the overall salary budget of the Province. That is something that was supposed to be part of the deal but got left out at the end.

There are unfunded liability problems and the minister will probably tell us how much. It depends what the actuaries say from year to year. It depends on the interest rates and it depends on the long-term projections of interest rates. These are long-term problems and these are problems that will deal with obligations of the Province over the next ten, fifteen, twenty, in some cases thirty years. We do need long-term solutions. We do not have them yet. As I say, the minister, I hope, will tell us about them.

When you look at the Province's public debt, Mr. Speaker, the three elements are as follows: the net direct debt; the guaranteed debt; and there is the unfunded liability debt. The net direct debt, in my view, Mr. Speaker, in my judgement, is quite manageable. I do not know if the minister will agree. The minister might say: Do you want to be like Alberta, would you rather have no debt? We would all rather have no debt, Mr. Speaker, but people who live in this Province, if they want to buy a house they go into debt, if they want to buy a car they go into debt in most cases. Some people even go into debt to go on a holiday. Mr. Speaker, debt is part of the way you do business. Debt is a part of the way people live. They borrow money. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the people of this Province had to operate the way the government is required to operate and have a balanced budget, they would not be able to buy a house. The way public finance works, if you go out and build a building or pave a road, spend $30 million on road paving that might last you thirty years or twenty years, that has to be accounted for in the year in which you borrow or else you go into a deficit.

Individual family financing does not work like that. If you buy a house in one year you are paying for it over a twenty-year period or a twenty-five year period, in some cases longer, in some cases shorter. People manage their ongoing obligations in that way. Our existing net direct debt of around $6 billion, when you net out the sinking funds, is actually the mortgage that we are paying, and that, in my judgement, is fairly manageable.

There may well be questions about whether or not the Hydro debt is higher than it should be in terms of a debt to equity ratio. That is something for Hydro to solve. That is something to be resolved by government and by the Board of Hydro. It is not something that the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to have to pay into.

The unfunded pension liability, principally here - and I think that is the exact number the minister will say - we have a significant problem with the Teachers' Pension Fund. We have a significant problem with the Teachers' Pension Fund and the minister knows this issue very well. I see that I only have a minute left. I hope that the minister when he rises on his feet will talk about that, because what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, in the last six months in this Province is a gigantic reversal of this government's fortunes to the point that this minister should have had, and should be bringing into this House, a mini budget saying: We have all this new revenue and we are going to use some of it to look after certain problems of our debt. We are going to use other portions of it to bring back some of the programs that we cancelled. We are going to use some of it to provide relief for the people of this Province. We are going to provide certain increases that need to be supplied to the people of this Province who are receiving Income Support, for example, people who need medical transportation, people who need drugs to be able to get their fair piece that they need for their medical conditions. All of these things are crying out for help and this minister should be bringing in a mini budget instead of just a fiscal statement saying: We have taken all that money, we are putting it in our back pocket, we are going to use it to pay off the cash deficit, but we are also going to use it to pay off the accrual deficit. He should not be doing that, Mr. Speaker. He should bring in a new plan and tell us how that money is going to help us solve our problems in the long run as well as the short term.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

If the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to add, there are a lot of inaccuracies in what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, and I will point them out. Number one, when you borrow for a house and you might mortgage it for $100,000 or $200,000, you have a value in that house and it is paid off in a period of time. We record on the books of this Province tangible capital assets. We include the acquisition of tangible capital assets. We include the amortization appreciation of tangible capital assets and they are reflected in our financial statement. I am not sure if the member is aware of that but that is a fact.

There is also more debt than he talked about. There is another piece of debt other than the three he talked about that he hasn't even made reference to, $1.2 billion on post-retirement liabilities, which means the government today pays 50 per cent of the health care costs of everybody working for government and everybody who retired. We pay 50 per cent of those costs. We have run up a bill now, if we stopped the clock today, for those in the service, we would have to pay out $1.2 billion to be able to meet the future needs of the health plans that we agreed to pay 50 per cent of.

AN HON. MEMBER: When? In five years?

MR. SULLIVAN: When they incur it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over how many years?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is just like a mortgage. It is $1.2 billion we have to pay. In other words, if we said to people - if we want to get that debt off our books, we have to tell the people: When you retire, we are not going to pay any of your health plan.

We do not propose to do that, Mr. Speaker. We are not proposing that. It is real debt, and we are counting. He talked about sinking funds. If he followed the financial statement I released at mid-term, we net off sinking funds; we net off all those things. In our $12 billion debt, I will tell him what is there: $4.4 billion of unfunded pension liability; $1.2 billion of post-retirement liabilities.

MR. JOYCE: Sit down!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bay of Islands, not in his seat, is yelling back and forth around the House. I am trying to explain and answer the questions the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked. If he wants to interrupt and doesn't want to hear it, I will certainly do it at another time when he is absent from the House.

I will make this point before I sit down. If I am not interrupted again, I will make the other points.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for the Bay of Islands is shouting from his seat. He is not supposed to be speaking when he is not in his seat, and he should stand and be recognized if he is in his seat.

We counted $4.4 billion unfunded liability. If you attended the news conference, or read it, or followed the Web site, or read the documents of government, you would find out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that first. I will correct your inaccuracies first, and then I will get to how we are going to fix it. How can you fix something when you do not know what is wrong and you do not have the facts? That member does not know the facts. That is like saying: How do you know when you are going to get somewhere if you do not know where you are going.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: One point two billion plus retirement liabilities, and the remainder of that debt, when you take these two away, leaves $6.4 billion as the net debt of debenture debt and other related debt, in addition to the five point six for post-retirement liabilities and unfunded pension liabilities.

Another aspect that he mentioned, he indicated: How are we going to deal with it? - read a statement I read two years ago. He said: We are doing it too fast; we have eight years to balance it. Then he said: How are you going to deal with debt? Here is how you deal with debt, and here is the plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you where we are heading. The plan, first of all, is to stop adding to debt if you are going to deal with it. We faced $1 billion of debt two years ago from the former government. It put us so far down, we didn't think we would ever get out of it. We did get to - the first year, we closed at $913.6 million deficit. I will be tabling the public accounts - it will be ready for tabling shortly - and you will see last year's debt is in the ballpark, I will say, of $500 million. The debt for this year, hopefully - hopefully - we will balance the budget. The price of oil that we get is $52 a barrel. I think I saw Brent today at $53, which means we get below Brent. It may drop below our projections if it goes any lower, but if it stays where it is then we should, hopefully, balance the budget this year.

Here is what you do with debt. First of all, you have to stop adding to debt before you can deal with it. How are we going to deal with it? I have put a proposal to Cabinet. We are looking at long-term financial viability of dealing with our debt and our unfunded liability. How can you deal with it when you are spending $1 billion more than you are taking in, in a year? The only way to deal with debt is to have the fiscal flexibility to not be spending more than you are taking in, and stop adding to it. That is one of the reasons why.

A lot of the information he made - here is where we got there. Two years ago, or when they had the federal election campaign, prior to that, when we went out with the Blue Book, people laughed and said - people in this House - how are you going to do it? One of the things you are doing in your platform, the federal government has to pay more. They said, you are hanging your hat on getting out of our fiscal dilemma on the federal government.

Since that, the record speaks for itself. During tough negotiations on equalization with Ottawa - the Premier was there, and I know how much effort he put into it - we extracted between $50 million and $100 million, depending on (inaudible) out of equalization. We got a Health Accord that is putting in an average of almost $50 million a year extra for each year. We got an Atlantic Accord that is putting hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars extra into our coffers. This year, with the price of oil going up - I read a former member, I saw his name in the paper today, he was running and he said the price of oil they are taking for. Little does he realize that the price of oil went up and will give us $300 million more than we budgeted, but it would be clawed back under equalization had we not gotten an accord to protect it and had we not gotten a fixed equalization pot for the two-year period. It would have gone in one hand, out the other. We were lucky the price went up, absolutely, but were we lucky we can keep it? No, it was tough fighting under the Atlantic Accord. That is why our fiscal situation has improved. That is why we are getting out of debt in our Province.

What are we going to do about it? We are looking now that we are not going to be spending more than we are taking in - rolling out. We are looking at rolling out a way to deal with the issues you raised, that I am very concerned with, and an issue that I put forward. Over the next period of time we will deal with this issue because we are in a position now where we can stop adding to debt and start to deal with the debt that is out there. It is a very serious position.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you going to (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: We are not going to tell you yet, I say to the member, until we announce it. We will announce it in due course, I will say to him. We will announce it in due course. There are proper processes and procedures to follow, I will tell the member, and he will not be the last to find out but he will not be the first to find out. I will tell him that.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous aspects to dealing with this. We have a serious problem. He said, a little tweaking to fix the Public Service Pension Plan. (Inaudible) by 2033 - we are now at 50 per cent and we will be there in 2033, and we need $2 billion now to get it on an even keel. That is a lot of tweaking, $2 billion to get the Public Service Pension Plan fully funded when other jurisdictions around this country, a lot of them, have fully funded plans.

We need $2.3 billion to fix the Teachers' Pension Plan. We need tens and tens of millions to fix the Uniformed Services Pension Plan - $4.4 billion. That is a lot of tweaking. A little tweaking to fix it, a $2 billion tweak. That is what it is to fix it.

He was not factual on what we are reporting. He indicated - we do include tangible capital assets. If you look in the financial statements we release each year, and in budget, there are net additions of tangible capital assets and there is an amortization shown through these. They are in the statement. We have added that.

The member said they were never recorded. The public accounts of our Province has always recorded, to my knowledge, way back since long before I came here. I cannot go back to the 1950s and say it, but the public accounts of the Province have always recorded those aspects of the unfunded liability and pension plans, to my knowledge. Certainly since I have come in this House, I can speak for that. They have been recorded. In spite of what the member says, that is absolutely false.

He will find out in due course, but you cannot fix debt when you keep adding to debt. You increase your risk. You pass the burden on to others. You increase the burden for everybody when you do that.

I will end with saying that this bill here, and this paper, has absolutely nothing to do - I just wanted to answer the question and not avoid answering them - has absolutely nothing to do; it is just a little technical procedure to include -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not tweaking either. The Loan Act gives authority right now to do it, and now the Financial Administration Act will. You could call it housekeeping there. It is just how it is administratively delivered under this particular act.

With that, I move to close second reading on the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, 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 46)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Later.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

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 presently, by leave. (Bill 46)

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

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

Order 10, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act," Bill 47.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act." (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act," be now read a second time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill here is one that would make is consistent with the Financial Administration Act and the Hydro Corporation Act. What this does: Right now, if the Municipal Financing Corporation wants to borrow it goes to Cabinet and gets approval to borrow, then it comes back, and the Minister of Finance is responsible to go to the markets and borrow and then go back to Cabinet a second time. It is cumbersome, it is not consistent with the Financial Administration Act, it is not consistent with the Hydro Corporation Act, and sometimes when the market is there, by having to wait to go back to Cabinet, you could lose the opportunity to maximum your borrowing and your price, and it could fall through and it could cause you to borrow at a higher rate. It is giving the authority to line it up with others, so that you don't have to go to Cabinet twice, when a decision is made to borrow for specific municipal funding and other types of funding that would be covered. Actually, it is municipal financing funding that would be under this specific bill.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister said, I guess this piece of legislation makes it consistent with the Financial Administration Act and less cumbersome on whoever the minister might be, rather than going back to the Cabinet more than one time. I can see being able to do that, but the bottom line for all of us - regardless if it is under the Municipal Financing Act or the Corporation or under the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that is really not the big question, because at the end of the day the government will be responsible for the debt. I guess what is important is how much will be spent on the municipalities in the Province regardless of who is in control of it, especially those in the rural part of the Province.

I will conclude with that and speak in Committee, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to speak in support of this legislation because it does make the operation of the Province's finances more efficient. As the minister says, there may be opportunities when particular circumstances ought to be taken advantage of without having to go back to Cabinet, so I support that.

I do want to say this, Mr. Speaker - partly in response to what the minister said on the last bill - that he's not the only one who understands the Province's finances. We understand that the unfunded pension liability is significant and serious, but the $2 billion that he is talking about is not due and owing tomorrow. We do not have to reach into our pockets tomorrow and come up with $2 billion to look after the unfunded pension liability. We know the minister has $2 billion in the bank from the Atlantic Accord. We know he has another $1.5 billion in Sinking Funds in the bank; $3.5 billion. We are not saying that is available to provide for hospitals today or tomorrow. That is something that is required over the long term, to look after long-term debt and to look after revenue that we are going to accrue over the next several years. So, we understand that, but the same thing happens on the other side. The $2 billion in unfunded pension liability that he is talking about, or the amount that is owing on the Public Service Pension Plan, that is being looked after by an additional payment by the workers of this Province who are putting in an additional 1 per cent over and above the actuarial cost of their own pension. They are putting in more than they have to put in to pay for the pension, and they are doing it over the long run and will be doing it for the next twenty-five or thirty years. The government is committed to putting an additional $70 million a year into that pension fund.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sixty.

MR. HARRIS: Sixty million. Well, maybe if it was $70 million we would not have a problem. That is the kind of tweaking that I am talking about, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He says if they need it - if they have a hundred and twenty. But, whatever it is, there has to be some change made to do it but we do not need $2 billion tomorrow to fix the problem. That is my point, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister actually understands that.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, he is not the only one who understands the finances of the Province, that these are long-term problems. They were created a long time ago. It took a long time for us to get where we are today and it is going to take us a long time to solve them. So, you cannot go waving around these long-term obligations and say: Oh, my, oh, my, the sky is falling in. It is like somebody with a mortgage of $100,000. I mean, some people cannot sleep at night because their mortgage is $100,000, but their house might be worth $200,000 or $150,000 and they may be paying it off over the next twenty years. Other people find it quite easy to sleep at night because they know they can pay off a mortgage of $50,000 or $40,000 or $70,000.

We are in a position, for example, on the regular debt that we have, to make our interest payments, which take up about 10 per cent to 12 per cent of our revenue. Not bad. Not bad, really, when it is compared to other provinces, and when it is compared to the - now, the minister is whispering some other numbers here. There may be other numbers but I am talking about the direct debt now. I am not talking about the imagined debt and the debt that is not owing for the long term. There may be interest costs, notional interests costs, on this unfunded liability that get added. I am saying on the direct debt we do not really have a significant problem. We have to solve the unfunded pension liability, but we are not going to solve it in one week or in one year. We do not have to come up with $2 billion or $3 billion next year to fix it. The problem with the pension fund is that there is not enough contributions being made on an annual basis to cover the long-term obligations. When that is fixed the problem will be resolved. It is like your bank coming to you and saying you are not paying enough to discharge your mortgage. If you paid an extra $50 a month your mortgage would be in good shape, but that does not mean it is going to go away. You just have to pay an extra $50 a month to straighten out your situation. That is the analogy that I am making.

Now, in the Province's financial picture the number might not be $50 a month, it might be more like $50 million a month that you would have to come up with, but the revenues of this Province are in excess of $4 billion a year and ways have to be found to solve some of these problems so that these long-term problems will have long-term solutions so that we do not have to go around talking about the sky falling in every time somebody wants to spend some money on a necessary program in a Province with the highest rate of child poverty in the country, the highest rate of unemployment in the country, the highest rate of childhood obesity in the country and children going to school hungry everyday. These are the problems that we have to fix. We can also fix the long-term problems by having long-term solutions. We cannot just take money that happens to come our way, throw it against the debt and ignore the needs of the people. That is the point that I was making. That is the point that I will continue to make every opportunity that I get in this House because it is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand that, yes, we have long-term debt problems and we have to find solutions, but that does not mean we have to make many people in our Province suffer in the short-term to solve these problems.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance. If the minister speaks now he will close debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just thank both of the members there for supporting this bill. It is one that will facilitate the process.

I do want to just add that, with reference to some of the comments, we are only paying interest on the debt. We have not been able, over the last number of years, to reduce debt. We have increased debt and we are just keeping up by paying the interest. I think we will reduce it from about $1.7 billion last year, or the year before, to this past year of $940 million. So, we are making strides in reducing our interest on the debt. So, that is encouraging. There are a couple of reasons for that. One is that while we are not adding to debt as quickly as we used to, it was that the interest rates - when debt comes due you roll them back in at a much lower rate because interest rates are down. So, these are advantages we have been trying to capitalize on.

Once again, I thank the members for their support and the expeditious moving of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act. (Bill 47)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 47)

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 Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act be now read a second time.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act." (Bill 49)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess three general aspects to the bill. One - it is covered in the first two clauses there - is that government is looking at, instead of annual payments there, they would be able to collect and submit - most companies submit their taxes, like deductions for Income Tax, EI and CPP, on a monthly basis. This will allow companies to forward on a monthly basis. So, we will have more timely submissions of monies coming into government. That is the nature of that.

Also, right now if someone does not agree with an assessment, they have to go to the courts, to the Trial Division. We are adding in the sections - that is referenced there in clauses 3 and 4, to have an appeal process before it goes to that level. At least there is an appeal to the minister. They will have an opportunity. He might be able to address those concerns without having to go to the courts on it. That should save, hopefully, time and money and get it resolved, if that is successful.

Also, in reference to fines; the last sections are pertaining to fines. The fines are identified. They are not exceeding $100 for each day of failure to comply or 10 per cent of the tax that is unpaid. So, that is to allow it to bring it in line with the amounts that is in other legislation and so on.

So, these are the key points here in this bill. With that, I will finish my introduction here on the second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand in support of Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

One thing I have to say about this Finance Minster, he is pretty creative when it comes to generating and looking for new sources of revenue.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: This is generating when you are going to get it monthly, instead of annually and so on, I say to the minister.

Being able to have the ability to collect tax from insurance companies on a monthly basis puts more money into government's Treasury and more money into the hands of the Finance Department. So, it does generate money on a timely basis, rather than waiting for it on an annual basis. However, the appeal process is a good one. Anything that streamlines government red tape is a good thing. I know there is a committee formed now within government called a red -

What is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: When I heard it first I thought it was red-eye reduction, but it is red tape reduction. I could not call it blue tape, but there is going to be lots of blue tape, I am sure, as we can see.

I know this company has been formed to reduce a lot of the paper and a lot of the rigamarole that government requires in operating a business. If you talk to any businesses out there today, the first thing they will tell you is that by the time they get finished with completing all the government forms and bureaucratic mess that they have to go through every month, they almost wonder: Is it worth the bother when you are operating a small operation? So, the internal appeal process will probably be a good thing.

With regard to the fines; I do not know if there was any consultation done with the insurance industry, in general, to talk about these changes that are going to occur. I do not know, this government has not been big on consultation. Although, they are finding out now that it is necessary in order to get the agreement and the support of people who are affected. They have come up with a few things, trying to enforce policy down the throats of people around this Province, particularly when you look at raw material sharing. What a disaster that has been to the coffers of this Province. The fishing industry is in the hole about $250 million this year, compared to other years.

Look at the snowmobile industry; that policy was brought in without ever consulting with people, and a lot of snowmobile clubs have already been dismantled because of that procedure - that government did not listen for consultation - so I don't know if they have actually consulted with the insurance industry or not. I have not had any input from the insurance industry with regard to this particular act.

Of course, government promised large refunds to policyholders for automobile insurance. If everyone is comparing their automobile insurance, I am sure most of them will tell you they never got the savings that was forecasted by this government. This is another case of this particular government talking about one thing when they were running for election and doing another thing when they were elected. Of course, I have the Blue Book on my desk and I know that a couple of members over there across the way talked about a cap of $2,500 on insurance if they became the government. What did they do? The complete opposite.

This is what we call a housekeeping item as spoken about by the Finance Minister, but what it will do, actually, it will allow government to collect taxes on a monthly basis. If someone pays their insurance, and they pay to an insurance company, the insurance company has an obligation then to submit that on a monthly basis.

Since this is just the second reading of this bill, I will defer any questions until the next reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister speaks now he will close debate on second reading.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just move second reading of the bill. I have laid out the particular points of it, and certainly I am open if there are any questions in Committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Insurance Companies Tax Act. (Bill 49)

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?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 49)

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

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

I want to introduce second reading of a bill, An Act to Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill 40)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill here, it amends it to bring it into compliance with the Pension Benefits Act and it allows more flexible termination options. I will just touch on a few of the points.

Under the collective agreement that government has with the NLTA, they must agree to any amendments to the Teachers' Pensions Act. I will say that they have agreed with these amendments here to the act because that is required in compliance with their collective agreement. I will just touch on a couple of the points here.

The main thrust of this is - one of the first points here is that in 2002 there was a negotiated collective agreement which they allowed to have an indexing provision and they were going to set up a separate indexing fund. It has been carried out and they paid 0.85 per cent for that, teachers, and remember the public service plan put 1 per cent each into the indexing, and government. That was going to be set up as a separate plan. It has been implemented now, and so on, but the record is kept. This is giving legislative authority to set up that separate accounting for that particular indexing here. That is one of the aspects.

The other aspects allow some flexibility, like in the case of a marriage breakdown and the spouse would receive a portion of that pension. That option is there now to be able to get a commuted value, have it transferred into an RRSP, or to be able to take that as they can right now; they can take it now as an income for the rest of their lives. Now, you can have a commuted value and you can have that transferred. That is another aspect to it.

Of course it was a little complicated, the teachers' plan. Prior to 1991, if you remember, I think it was January 1, 1991, they eliminated the provision for stacking. Before that, there was an option there. This law has to be consistent, that people who had a right back then you do take it away, that option still exists, but between the time specified here now they will have that option there. We would not take away an option somebody has.

In other words, it is really the best of both worlds. They get the choice of options here on the plan, what existed, because there were different periods you went through, if you remember. Before January, I think, of 1991, they took away stacking, or there was - no, buying back of service, January 1, 1991. Stacking went out in 1998, I believe. That way there was an agreement reached then with teachers that would eliminate stacking, and there was funding then, agreed at that time. In lieu of giving up stacking there was a cost - and it is not directly with the pension plan; it does the health of the plan. I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised about the health of the plan, and what was put in. Back at the time - just for the information of the House, I will throw it out - there was an agreement reached that prior to 1980, where government had spent the money from this pension plan, they would calculate that amount - which they did - and then giving up stacking, there was an amount calculated for that and it came to $815 million. The $76 million a year that is going into the teachers' pension plan is going in by virtue of that agreement. That is going in, not really pertinent to this piece of legislation, but I think it has come up here in discussion so I will just throw that out. That has gone in.

Another point, too, is that the public service plan - yes, there is $60 million a year forever until the plan gets healthy. Well, at $60 million a year it will never get healthy; it will stay right where it is, actually, at around 50 per cent. That is just an aside to it on the general plan.

That makes provision for the allowances that we were allowed to have. The 2.2 per cent that teachers did have up to one point in time, now it is 2 per cent. It just gives more flexibility here in the plan. It implements the 2002 collective agreement that was reached with teachers and the former government there to have that indexing fund now set up. It is being done as if the fund is set up because the agreement was there, calculated, and the money goes into that fund. If 0.85 per cent contributed by each can fund that, fine; if it cannot fund it, the agreement was you cut it back and prorate it then, if there is not enough in that fund to fund indexing. With that, then, I will close my comments on opening of second reading on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few words to say on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. Of course, this is one of the categories that places our Province in a deficit or long-term debt, particularly as it results to unfunded pension liability of $6 billion.

Of course, the Teachers' Pension Plan makes up part of that unfunded liability, but I am very pleased that under the reign, actually, of Brian Tobin, a former Premier of this Province, he recognized that we should do something extra and start to deal with the unfunded liability. I think it was in 2001 that he actually brought forward a plan to make extra payments into this particular plan as well as others. As a result of this, this is now starting to get a little bit healthy looking.

As the Minister of Finance indicated, the collective agreement by the NLTA and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ensures that any bill that is brought before this House already has the agreement from both parties. What we are debating here today has already been agreed upon by the two parties that would be affected by this particular bill. That is why I stand today in support of this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have any trouble supporting this bill that has been agreed to by the NLTA. It does show, however, as the minister pointed out, a certain degree of flexibility, particularly in clause 5. The teachers' pension has an indexing provision and a separate fund for indexing. The new clause 5 provides that the annual indexing of the teachers' pension is subject to the availability of funds in the indexing account being sufficient to cover the actuarial cost of the increases, and provides a formula for the proportion of reduction of such increases in the event that sufficient funds are not available, and that certainly seems to be a reasonable provision that ensures - and it is only a partial indexing. I understand that it is not a full indexing of the pension. It is only a partial indexing in any event, but this particular provision recognizes that unless the funding is actually in that particular account on an actuarial basis, which really means that somebody decides the interest rate over the long term, and the return on the fund, plus the obligations of that fund on an actuarial basis will actually meet the indexing that is set forth, that is in conformity with it, and that seems to me to be very reasonable approach with respect to the indexing.

I am sure that the teachers would probably want more than that, but obviously they have agreed to that with government, and that seems to me to be at least - that particular obligation that has been agreed to is not causing an increased negative consequence for the overall teachers' pension fund.

As the minister indicated, the pre-1991 rate of accrual of service is still left intact, and that is undoubtedly higher than the current rate of accrual. A part of the history of this plan - I think some people understand this - during the 1980s in particular a lot of improvements were made to the Teachers' Pension Plan that were negotiated with the government of the day, and those improvements were very costly.

I guess there are two versions of this story. Perhaps the minister had one version of this story when he was a teacher; he has another version now that he is Minister of Finance, but these were very expensive improvements to the Teachers' Pension Plan, and the Finance Minister of the day did not make provision to pay for them. I will say that, that the Finance Minister and the government of the day did not make provision to pay for the improvements that were granted to the teachers' pension fund back in the 1980s, that they were certainly put in place and they were negotiated with the NTA, but one of the reasons that we have the kind of problems that we have today with unfunded pension liability is that his predecessor, as Minister of Finance, did not make provision for the payments to provide the funds to pay for these benefits that were being agreed to with the NTA of the day, before it was called the NLTA, and now the NLTA, and the government, of course, has agreed with the teachers, through a collective bargaining process, that they cannot change the plan without their consent.

That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that government has done that. I do not know if this government has done it. I do not think it was this government - it was done in the past - but, you know, NAPE and CUPE complained years ago that they had unfunded liability that the government of the day, as a previous government, was turning around and blaming it on the public sector workers. They were blaming the problems of the Public Service Pension Plan on the public sector workers, and NAPE turned around and said: You are blaming it on us, but whenever we try to negotiate pensions with you, you told us that it wasn't a ‘bargainable' issue. You said it was outside of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, that we were not prepared to discuss pensions with you.

Then they turn around, and I remember the minister - Paul Dicks was the Minister of Finance at the time, and I am sure the current minister was over here saying the same things that we were saying: They cannot say that to the NTA because you never gave them a chance to negotiate it in the first place, because you told them that it was not negotiable and now you are telling them they have to pay the price to fix up the problem.

What happened in the end was that NAPE and CUPE helped the government find a solution, long-term, to the pension plan. They helped government find a solution to the long-term problems in the Public Service Pension Plan. We are not totally there yet, as the minister knows, but we do have significant problems with the Teachers' Pension Plan, as I am sure the minister will acknowledge, and these are problems that will have to be worked out with the NLTA.

I thought the minister was going to tell us this afternoon some of his solutions. Obviously, he is not going to do that. When he got up to speak, he did not. When he got up to speak, he said: I am not going to tell you today. When I was speaking, he said: I will tell you how I am going to fix that. Then, when he got up, he kept us in anticipation and he said: I am not going to tell you today. I am going to tell you some other time.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he does have some solutions, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need long-term solutions to these long-term problems, and I hope that he has some plan that he can work out with the NLTA, his former colleagues in the teaching profession, and I hope that he - well, maybe he is going to tell us whether he had the same story when he was a teacher as he does now as Minister of Finance. I do not know if he was on the bargaining committee or not, Mr. Speaker. He may well have been. With his knowledge of figures, and his interest in finance, he may well have been behind the scenes giving advice to the bargaining committee, telling the teachers how to improve their pensions. I am sure he is now in a situation, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Maybe it is true, maybe it is not. He will tell us the truth now when he gets up to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I know he has a significant responsibility on his hands in terms of dealing with the teachers' pension fund and the teachers' pension problems, and I hope he is going to tell us this afternoon what he is going to do to resolve them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister speaks now he will close debate at second reading of Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I told the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he will not be the last to find out but he will not be the first. We are looking at that as a major issue for government, there is no doubt about it. We had difficulty dealing with it when we added $1 billion to our debt in our first year, $914 million, about half a billion last year and this year, hopefully, we will not. We are looking very seriously at that.

I do acknowledge, under the Public Service Pension Plan, it is on a stable footing. While the $60 million is not going to increase its percentage of funded liability unless we get enormous returns - and we have been getting returns about 10.74 per cent since its inception, and there is still a huge gap. There is a lot that has to be dealt with. It is a long-term way to deal with it, there is no doubt about it.

One of the problems we have is that under our Public Service Pension Plan there is about 38,000 in the plan, 37,000 or 38,000. The teachers have 12,000; that is active and retired. The number of teachers is going to be double retired to what is active, based on student enrollment going from 162,000 students down to about 77,000 or so, approximately, now, which means there are significant numbers of less teachers; more retired, less teaching. To get that funded - that is very unstable - at about 26 per cent, roughly, uniformed services is about 16 per cent, so we do have a major problem. We acknowledge that and we are looking seriously at that, but you have to get your financial house in order.

What do you do when you are paying out $1 billion more than you are taking in? We are adding to debt still. Pension is debt. There is no difference - there is absolutely no difference - in a dollar of debt that is owed to me in a future commitment and a dollar of debt whether it is a debenture debt or unfunded liability. It is a credit that these pensioners have earned. Whether they are nurses or public service workers here, at a front desk or whatever level they are here in government, they paid in and they expect to get a cheque; we owe that money to them. They might not have to get it all today. They will get it while they are living, and their spouse thereafter, and so on. We realize that is every bit as important - to secure the future income of people when they are retired is every bit as important as paying on a dollar of debenture debt that is out there now, too. They are equal in terms of value and they are very important to the people who worked hard for government, to expect to be able to get a cheque in the future. We have an obligation to ensure that does happen.

We cannot have the future government of the day - for instance, the Teachers' Pension Plan in 2014 will go bankrupt at the current rate, and we are putting $76 million a year in, we will have to fork out of the public Treasury $200 million a year just to meet the payroll. The public service, when that goes under, it will take longer because there is a fair number paying in. We do have, right now - you were talking about the numbers reduced in government - we have more people working in government now, on this payroll this year, than we had this time last year. There has only been a difference, out of the whole (inaudible) public service just up over 150, roughly, less people than we had when we came in here working in government departments. We have had a fair number of programs added on. We have had to hire people to run these programs, and we have more working for government now than we did last year.

We do have a stable public service here, in spite of some of the things in Question Period and after. I wasn't going to get up and address it at this time, but it is an appropriate time to address it, that there are more people working.

Across our Province today, 37 per cent of the workers are employed in rural areas. That is the highest number of people of any jurisdiction in Canada working in rural parts of any particular Province.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, 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 Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 40)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Premier and Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly." (Bill 24)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, this bill was introduced in the spring session. If I could get the attention of people on the opposite side, whether they want me to comment, this was moved for second reading in the spring session and I have spoken on it. If you wanted me to just, in a couple of minutes, tell what it is about and two amendments that would be forthcoming, to quickly let you know before it comes up, that there is no surprise when it is tabled, the two amendments. With leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the bill you see before you, there is one specific aspect to the bill that is circulated there now and that is our pension plan has been off limits with the Income Tax Act. For the past number of years former governments have been saying, and we have told CRA when we took over, that we will move the bill in the House to make it inline with the Income Tax Act. In other words, if it is not inline with the Income Tax Act it means the plan becomes de-registered and your contributions are not deductible. So what is done is that, in the body of bill, what you see here - I will get the two amendments after - is that nothing changes for anybody. Their contributions or their benefits, nothing changes. Basically, what it does, it is taken - it is basically a paper account where what qualifies under the Income Tax Act goes into what is called a registered pension plan for MHAs. The amount that we could contribute to that plan is 13 per cent. Each individual pays in 9 per cent and government would pay 4 per cent, so13 per cent goes into a registered plan. The service cost of the plan is 41.7 per cent, roughly. The remainder, 28.7 per cent, would be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and it would be set up as a supplementary account. So, nothing changes. You see your statement. You earn your credits. Nothing changes. It is that you have one plan called a registered plan and there is a supplementary plan paid out of the consolidated fund. We need to do that, to inline with it. A commitment has been given. We are at the end of the line in complying. We have indicated that we would have it done this year. We did not get it through the spring legislation, and this has been a number of years. This would make it retroactive, this part, to 1992 because this would bring it inline with it. So, that is what you see in that bill.

There are two other amendments that we will be moving forward in committee stage. We are waiting. We would get them out if we had them. At this point they are going through the process of getting them, I guess, drafted and printed. We may have them, House Leader, I think even probably this afternoon or certainly by tomorrow.

What that is, is rounding up portion. We are trying to bring all pension plans consistent. If you work 8.4 years as an MHA, you should get paid for 8.4 years. If you work 8.9 years, you get paid for 8.9 years. Right now, if you are under 183 days, you get rounded down to the lower year. If you are seven years and182 days, you only get seven years. If you are seven years and 183 days, you get paid for eight years. Other pension plans are the same way. Instead of rounding off, everybody will get their pension calculated based on the year and number of months that they worked. The percentage of calculations are the same. For anybody elected - and I will not go through all of them - 5 per cent a year for the first ten for everybody. If you were elected since the last General Assembly, it is 2.5 for the last ten and there is a three-way calculation prior to that. So, I will not go into the details. That is just a rounding off.

The second amendment, or the third major thing, is that right now if somebody works for other service - if they have other service, anyone, and they come into government, you can transfer that service. There is no change in any of that. But, when you transfer the service - in other words, the service you have is calculated on your basic MHA salary. If you happen to become a minister, what you transferred in, you get a percent of your MHA and your minister. In other words, you get double. So, why should - you were working somewhere else - you come in, and because you happen to be a minister get paid for that service as an MHA and as a minister? That is, we think, excessive and it should be corrected. It does not happen for anybody else and we should eliminate it. That is the second amendment that is coming. That is on a go-forward basis. Nobody will be affected currently, who exit under that plan, after the Forty-fifth General Assembly, in 2007, I guess after October 9, or whatever.

That is basically the second reading. What I wanted to mention, if there are details that need to be brought out in committee stage, I am certainly open to answer that.

With that, I guess I will close my comments on second reading, unless somebody needs to speak on it at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party and Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I just want to briefly speak, Mr. Speaker, to this legislation.

The legislation has been before the House since the spring session. As the minister has indicated, it is designed to bring our pension plan into conformity to the Income Tax Act rather technical rules, as the minister as pointed out, and this will satisfy them.

I guess I did not want to - having spoken on the Teachers' Pension Plan - talk about unfunded liability without making some reference, at least, to the MHA's pension plan. It is not a fully funded plan, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it was ever intended to be a fully funded plan because the rate at which pension service is earned is higher than normally allowed because of the nature of political pensions. That is the reality of the situation, Mr. Speaker, but it is a situation where, under the new regime, the MHA pension portion of it that is under the Income Tax will be subject to actuarial rules and will be fully funded, but the additional cost of that plan will come from outside, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and will be a cost to government of providing pensions for Members of the House of Assembly. It is not a fully funded pension. I do not think it was ever intended to be, and it is not likely to be. Although, the minister may have on it on his list of unfunded pension liabilities when PricewaterhouseCooper gets to have a look at them or the Auditor General gets to have a look at them, but it is actually an expenditure of the Crown on an annual basis; long-term expenditure on a long-term basis.

Having said that, I support the amendment to the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just move second reading of the bill.

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 Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 24)

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?

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House of Assembly," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 24)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to the following bills: Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act; Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act; Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act; Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act.

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 the said bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR(Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee stage debate on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

A bill, " An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 40)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3. Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Clause 4. Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Clause 5. Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 5 is carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 6 is carried.

On motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 7 is carried.

On motion, clause 7 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, carried without amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 40 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee stage debate on Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act." (Bill 46)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 46 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee stage debate on Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act." (Bill 47)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

A final bill for consideration in Committee, Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act.

CHAIR: Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act." (Bill 49)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 4 to 6.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 4 to 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 4 to 6 is carried.

On motion, clauses 4 through 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 49 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have directed me to report that Bills 40, 46, 47 and 49 have been passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act; Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act; Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act; and Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act have been passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall this bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act, Bill 40.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been 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 Teachers' Pensions Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 40)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, Bill 46

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been 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 Financial Administration Act, " read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 46)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act, Bill 47.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 47)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move third reading of Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act, Bill 49.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

I want to thank members for a significant piece of work done today - four bills done right to third reading. I know tomorrow is Private Members' Day and we will be debating the motion put forward by the Member for Grand Bank related to FPI.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do move the adjournment of the House for the remainder of the sitting day and we will see everyone back here at 2:00 o'clock tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried. This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 23, at 2:00 in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.