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 Mount Pearl; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last night, you and I had the pleasure of attending the City of Mount Pearl's 2005, seventeenth annual Focus on Youth Awards Banquet. This event is organized and administered by the Mount Pearl Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Mount Pearl, and they do a tremendous job.

It is sponsored by various community groups, companies and corporations, to honour Youth, and Adults working with Youth, who make outstanding contributions to the community in the areas of sports, self-improvement and volunteerism. I would like to thank the sponsors of this event because, without their help, this event could not be possible.

Mr. Speaker, the winners were: Male Youth of the Year, Philip Holloway; Female Youth of the Year, Janine Hodder; RNC Youth in Service Award, Rebecca Mercer; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Julia Hiscock; Female Youth Athlete of the Year, Heather Jones; Male Youth Athlete of the Year, Chris Mallard; Youth Sports Team of the Year, Tier 5 Synchronized Swim Team; Adult Volunteer Working with Youth in Sport, Darren Moss; Youth Group of the Year, 4^th Mount Pearl Pathfinders; Adult Volunteer Working With Youth, Lillian Bussey; Visual Arts Award, Kylie Goodyear; Performing Arts Award (Individual), Megan Barnes, and performing Arts Recognition Awards were given to: Mount Pearl Senior High School Drama Club, Mount Pearl Show Choir, and O'Donel High Jazz Band.

I am truly overwhelmed to hear of all the accomplishments of these young people and adults nominated. Their dedication and contribution to our city is invaluable, and I commend them for all their efforts.

In closing, I would like to ask all the members of this House to join with me in congratulating the winners and the nominees for the 2005 Focus on Youth Awards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Grand Falls-Windsor's Centennial Committee Members and Volunteers who were named the recipient of the Doug Wheeler Award for promoting tourism in our Province at the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador Convention held in Grand Falls-Windsor recently.

The award, which is named in honour of the late civil servant Doug Wheeler, commemorates his efforts to promote the Province as a tourism destination, and recognizes a person or group who has done the most in the past year to develop or promote the tourism industry in our Province. The Centennial Celebrations Committee certainly fits that bill.

Mr. Speaker, the year-long festivities of 2005 introduced a host of new visitors to the splendors of Central Newfoundland and all that the region has to offer as a number one tourism destination.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Centennial Committee Members and Volunteers for their outstanding efforts in putting together an incredible year of events to celebrate Grand Falls-Windsor's one hundredth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a significant accomplishment of a town in my district. As you may know, Glovertown has been selected for the CBC Hockeyville Contest.

Mr. Speaker, out of 450 communities that applied for this contest, Glovertown made the first cut, making it into the top fifty as one of the only ten communities from the Atlantic region. The only community in Newfoundland and Labrador to do so.

Interesting enough, the person responsible for this, in large part, is a twelve-year-old boy by the name of Tyler Pritchett. While waiting in his father's office one day, Tyler stumbled across the posting from the contest on the Internet. He decided to enter on behalf of Glovertown. The application consisted of an essay explaining: why your town is Canada's Hockeyville. Tyler obviously did an impressive job, as days later they received a call from CBC informing them of the result.

Mr. Speaker, later this month voting for the winner will take place. The community that is named the winner will receive $10,000 worth of equipment for the local minor hockey association, $50,000 worth of renovations to their arena, and if that was not enough, the winner will also host an NHL exhibition game.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members of this House join with me today in congratulating Tyler Pritchett and his father, Kurt Pritchett along with contest team members, Juan Gill and son Alex Gill; Craig Ralph with son, Jonathan Ralph, and certainly the entire community of Glovertown on such a great accomplishment. Best of luck to them in the competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Eric Clarke of Blaketown who has earned special recognition in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto.

The volunteer program is sponsored by RBC Insurance who searched the country for local hockey volunteers who go unrecognized for their efforts towards minor hockey.

Mr. Clarke started as a coach in the association twenty-five years ago. He is well known and respected in the area as a driving force behind keeping the Trinity Placentia Minor Hockey Association in operation. He has served as President, established female minor hockey, coordinated practice schedules and organized tournaments and referee clinics. He is Mr. Hockey in the area.

Mr. Clarke was recognized on March 6 for his volunteer work. He will attend a special ceremony unveiling a display honouring the 2005-2006 RBC Local Hockey Leaders at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto. A banner recognizing the achievement will be also raised at the Trinity Placentia Stadium, which will also receive $10,000 towards minor hockey as part of the volunteer program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Hockey Hall of ‘Fame-er', Eric Clarke of Blaketown, on his continued contributions to minor hockey in the area and to the young people of the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the Badger's Quay Lions Club as they prepare to celebrate fifty years of community service.

In 1956, several individuals decided to search for ways to improve the lives of the citizens of their town. This desire to help led directly to the formation of the Badger's Quay Lions Club. Under the leadership of their first President, Uncle Harry L. Knee, the club developed deep and lasting roots. The clubs contribution to the social fabric of the community has been great and the benevolent nature of those involved is evidenced by the fundraising activities that have benefitted local hospitals, seniors homes, schools and youth groups. In total, over the fifty years the club has raised in excess of $1 million.

Whether sharing time with and showing respect to the seniors that helped develop their community, or entertaining the masses with their annual Christmas concert, the Lions have always made people their priority. During times of need the Lions are there. This international service organization reflects the values of kindness, generosity and sharing that are so representative of the people who call this great Province their home.

In retrospect, it seems that Uncle Harry and his friends made a wonderful choice in establishing the Lions Club as it was a perfect extension of the character and the empathetic nature of the men themselves. The Lions motto is: We Serve, and for fifty years that is just what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating the Badger's Quay Lions Club on fifty years of service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to recognize seven women from the Labrador Straits: Helen Hancock, Nancy Flynn, Maisie Groves, Bonnie Goudie, Karen Buckle, Alma Goudie and Shirley Letto on their competition of Women's Voices, Personal Stories from Labrador Women. It is a collection of stories, experiences and work of the women that have been compiled on compact disc.

Women's Voices is a project by the Forteau Community Access Program and Smart Labrador, which set out to combine storytelling with computer training. As each of these women learned to master modern day technologies, they also documented in video and audio the stories of Labrador women.

Mr. Speaker, the CDs are available to people who are interested, as well as bound printed copies of their stories. This has been a remarkable venture for these women whose ages range from thirty-five to sixty-five and whose personal and professional backgrounds vary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating these women of the Labrador Straits on the completion of Women's Voices, Personal Stories from Labrador Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House that government will commence the Strait of Belle Isle ferry service between St. Barbe and Blanc Sablon on Thursday, April 13, more than two weeks ahead of the usual schedule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, starting the service early will allow ferry users such as post-secondary students, teachers, or whomever, to either travel home during the Easter break or embark on vacation trips and will allow for the shipment of goods into and out of South and Southeastern Labrador earlier than ever.

Mr. Speaker, the Apollo ferry is an essential transportation link for the general public and the business community in this part of the Province. For many years, residents of Labrador, particularly those on the South Coast, have requested that government extend this service.

Mr. Speaker, the combination of favourable ice conditions and an improved fiscal capacity has allowed government to response to this request in this year's Budget with an investment of $759,000.

In total, government will extend the service by thirty days - a full month. Traditionally, the ferry service ran until the first week of January but this season government will extend the service until January 16, pending acceptable weather and ice conditions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to announce that this extension means that The Straits ferry service will now have its longest operating season ever.

Mr. Speaker, because so many residents of our Province depend on this service, government took a prudent, strategic approach in deliberating on how to extend the service.

Before finalizing the schedule, government sought the informed input of the newly-assembled Minister's Advisory Committee on Labrador Transportation. This nine-member group has been established to make recommendations on how best to address future Labrador transportation needs.

The Minister's Advisory Committee will be instrumental in advising government, as we move forward, to address issues such as those associated with the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Labrador marine service and air transportation.

Today's announcement, Mr. Speaker, clearly demonstrates once again our commitment to dealing with the ongoing transportation issues in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I said to the minister when I walked into the House, I hardly know how to take good news in my district because I have not had any for two-and-a-half years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if I wasn't so humble today, I would be standing here saying what a great member in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - whose perseverance in the last two years, and about twenty-five petitions in the House of Assembly, finally got the minister to listen.

But, no joking, Mr. Speaker, it is welcome news to me and to the people of my district. We have often extended the ferry service on the Strait of Belle Isle on any given year when ice permitted starting the ferry earlier and running it later. In the last couple of years, unfortunately, we did not always have that privilege but I am glad to see that now it is being extended on a permanent basis for a month and it will be well received news by the people of that area.

I can only say to the minister, I hope you will continue to do due diligence on transportation files in that part of Labrador because they are critical to the industry and the economy of the region.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: In doing so, I would also like to encourage him again to take another look at the marine services between Cartwright and Goose Bay; how we can improve on those services, have more trips, have more crossings, improve the capacity so that the industry in Labrador can grow from a marine perspective.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I echo the words of my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that this is good news indeed for the people of The Straits area but we look forward, Mr. Speaker - I say to the minister, we look forward to the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and at that time we hope that government will see fit to have a year-round ferry service with ice breaking capacities that will allow the free flow of traffic on a year-round basis.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions were going to be for the Premier but I will ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from our Premier about protecting the resources that we have for the benefit of the people of this Province, yet we see unemployed plant workers in the gallery today who are willing, ready and able to go to work but they cannot because redfish is being shipped unprocessed outside of our Province while their plant in New Harbour remains idle.

I ask the minister: Will you tell these people today that no redfish will leave this Province unprocessed as long as there is a processor, such as Mr. Woodman in New Harbour, who is willing to purchase that redfish and process it here in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It would certainly be our preference, as a government, if not one ounce of fish went out of this Province unprocessed. However, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with the realities of the marketplace, we have to deal with the realities of a place like Gaultois, for example, where if there weren't allowed to be certain conditions of processing attached to that license last year, 101 people getting 40,000 hours of work would have been unemployed.

We have to do a balance. I don't like it and the government doesn't like it. There are certain market conditions that call for certain processing conditions, and that is what we have tried to do here with a level playing field that makes it the same for the Woodman's, as it does for the Quinlan's, as it does for Gaultois, or as it does for any other processor in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I ask the minister for a straightforward answer.

Will you be allowing redfish to go out of this Province unprocessed this year while there is a plant in this Province, such as Woodland's in New Harbour, that is willing to process that fish? Yes or no, Minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not going to dictate how I answer a question. The answer to the question is not a simple yes or no. I said the preferred position of the government would be that not an ounce of fish go out of this Province unprocessed of any species, but that is not the real world. That position would see Gaultois shutdown, that position would see some other plants not operate, so we have to try to find a balance, and the balance is what the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair did when she was the minister and approved 51,000 pounds of redfish to go out. There was a reason for it. The member made the right decision, just as we have made the right decision, Mr. Speaker. Every situation is different, and we have to cut the garment, unfortunately, to suit the cloth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that probably every Fisheries Minister since Confederation allowed fish to go out of this Province unprocessed.

I remember living on New World Island when you were minister and there was a Russian factory freezer trawler parked in the harbour buying herring because nobody in this Province wanted to process that herring. At that time they didn't even want to buy it because there was a glut.

I gave permission to have fish shipped out of this Province unprocessed because there was no one in this Province who was willing to purchase it and process it here.

We have a company in New Harbour that is not only willing to purchase it but is willing to put people like those in the gallery today back to work. We are taking that resource and we are going to ship it out unprocessed for the benefit of people in countries such as China.

I ask the minister, categorically, again: Will you or will you not prohibit fish from going out while there is a plant willing to buy and process it here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to put a - just political rhetoric is all it is. There is no 3O redfish, which is the species we are talking about, going out of this Province to China. None, Mr. Speaker. The member knows that.

There are conditions of processing attached to companies who have applied for an exemption. A certain amount of processing and labour is involved in head off gutted, head on round. The final market destination has to be identified. The amount that is going to be shipped has to be identified. The weight has to be identified. All of these, Mr. Speaker, are conditions of licence, and none - N O N E - of that redfish is going to China for further processing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don't care if it is going to China or Timbuktu, if it is going out unprocessed. All I am saying is, I don't care where it is going, I say, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: All I am asking you is: Why are you permitting it to go out unprocessed when the people in the gallery, and many others in the Trinity Bay area, are willing to go to work in that fish plant? The owner, who happens to be sitting in the gallery today, is willing to buy that fish, willing to put these people back to work in processing it. We have a Premier who, every time he stands on his feet in this Province, talks about protecting our resource for the benefit of the people in this Province.

I ask the minister: Why are you in conflict with the Premier, who wants to keep the resource for the benefit of the people in the Province while you are allowing fish to go somewhere for further processing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am not in conflict with the Premier, not in the least, Mr. Speaker.

The year before there was an exemption policy, in 2004, there was a little over 5 million pounds of 3O redfish landed in this Province, Mr. Speaker. With an exemption policy last year, that went to almost 12 million pounds. That 12 million pounds of fish allowed Gaultois to operate, it allowed work out in Old Perlican, which is out in the same area, it allowed work in Salvage, in Trinity Bay, it allowed work all around this Province processing that to a certain state.

Do we put an end to all of that, Mr. Speaker? I would like to hear from the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. Does he want me to put an end to all of that, or do we do the least amount of it possible and try to improve the lot of most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are depending on the fishery as best we can? Is that a more balanced approach, or do we take the approach advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, with the support, I would assume - if he is speaking for his party - of the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

Earlier this week, I asked the Premier if he would be prepared to table in the House of Assembly the details relating to the failed Hebron-Ben Nevis negotiations. At that time, he indicated that he would check into the confidentiality issue and advise whether or not the information could be released.

I ask: Is government, at this time, now that they have had a few days, prepared now to give an answer to that question and advise if they are indeed in a position to release to the people of the Province the information concerning those negotiations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Here is the difference with a principled approach that looks forward to improving desires and aspirations and our lot in the place that we call home. On Monday, when this arrangement, or discussions or negotiations with Hebron, broke down, the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party said: Were we overplaying our hand or were we extending it too far? Yesterday, the same member who asked the question today stood up and said: Did we give something up by only accepting 4.9 per cent equity?

I suggest to the parties opposite, and I compliment the Leader of the NDP who stands on a principle on this issue, saying that, yes, we have a right to have some ownership and stake in terms of our own offshore oil company, or our own movement towards an energy company.

I suggest to the members opposite: Define for the people of the Province, like we have, where you stand with your desires and aspirations with respect to the oil and gas industry. Define what you would do. Define for the people of the Province exactly where you would set these negotiations. Then we will talk, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly appears that government is on the defensive today. Any questions that have been asked, I certainly have not heard any answers. All I have heard is rhetoric.

I say to the minister, for a government who passed the transparency act since they have become a government, I have been here since Monday asking questions - Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and now today - trying to get the information so that somebody could be fully informed, so that you could make an informed decision and take an informed position, and all I have gotten are naysays and noes.

I say to the minister again, in another regard, trying to get information so that we might be informed and have a complete picture, we have heard about the super royalty regime. It was apparently developed by the Province during the Ben Nevis talks, negotiations, similar to other royalty regimes in the sense that it was going to be administered by the Province, I would assume.

I ask government again - surely this information, which is within government's ambit, not subject to any confidentiality issues or commercial sensitivity issues - would the government be prepared and willing to table the details so that people can be informed about the super royalty regime that we are hearing about?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

People have been informed, I would submit to this House, about the super royalty regime. The Premier gave an undertaking to the member earlier this week, and the Premier will live up to the undertaking that he gave in terms of releasing any information that he can with respect to the confidentiality issues that exist between the Province and Chevron.

With respect to the super royalty regime, here is the difference yet again. As a condition of this project moving forward, the Province, this government, said to the oil companies simply this: If there is a windfall situation that exists where oil prices skyrocket to where they are right now, then we want something more than just a generic option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That we demand - that we absolutely demand - as our inherent birthright, something better than that. With respect to the level where it would kick in, it would kick in at $50 a barrel.

I say to the member, that was the position that we took. Unlike when I first was appointed Minister of Natural Resources, when I went into the department, what was put in front of me but the contemplation of a high-risk royalty regime by the former Administration that would have seen us (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, although there is $60 million in the Provincial Roads Program in this year's Budget, I have been notified in writing by the Minister of Transportation and Works that there is no money for repairs and upgrades to the Buchans Highway.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the minister is not aware that the new Duck Pond Mine near Millertown will be in full operation this fall. Approximately 200 permanent employees, heavy equipment, and ordinary citizens will be travelling that road and it is in a deplorable and unsafe condition.

I ask the minister: Why have you ignored the obvious need for repairs, and why did you not allocate funds to upgrade the Buchans Highway?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a $60 million provincial roads budget this year, of which $12 million or $11.6 million is carry-over work from last year. We have increased our budget by about three times the budget that the previous Administration had when they were in government just three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, with the deteriorated conditions of the roads throughout our Province, not just the Buchans Highway, I would submit to the Member for Grands Falls-Buchans that there are many, many busy highways with people who travel for work in this Province that need upgrading. We are trying to deal with those highways in a strategic way.

We have $60 million there next year. We hope to have $60 million there next year and for the foreseeable future, Mr. Speaker. Over the course of four to five years with funding at that level, not at the $22 million when they were in government, Mr. Speaker, with the funding at that level, we will get all of the roads in this Province restored to a respectable state in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Minister of Natural Resources, are all singing from the same songbook. They all realize the value of the mine in Millertown and the barite plant in Buchans to our provincial economy.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is: When are you going to wake up and realize what is happening around the Cabinet table? When are you going to realize that if you have this kind of major work going on in a region of the Province, you need to show that you are committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador? When are you going to do these upgrades?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that if they had been awake when they were in government and negotiated some good deals with the federal government, like we have, and fought for some good deals with the oil companies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - and what have you, then they would have had the money to do the maintenance that was required during the 1990s and up until this year, Mr. Speaker.

As it happens, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to negotiate some good deals with the federal government, with the leadership of the Premier, and today we have a $60 million roads budget, three times the budget that we saw when they were in government the last year.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it will take us some time to deal with all the roads in this Province, and there is no road in the Province any more important than the next one. We are spending $25 million on the Trans-Canada. If we had another $25 million we could easily spend it, Mr. Speaker, just like the $4 million we are spending in the Member for St. Barbe's district. If we had another $4 million, we could easily spend it there. We will deal with the Buchans Highway in due course, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister opposite that, while I was in government, I had road repairs done on the Buchans Highway every year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the state of the Buchans Highway, it has not been done for three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, there is a limited number of minutes for Question Period.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, who was putting a question.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With a $76.5 million surplus left on the table, let me tell you, there is lots of money for the Buchans Highway.

Mr. Speaker, the state of the Buchans highway has reached a very serious stage. If the minister is not willing to travel the road himself, there are lots of pictures I can show you.

Just this week I got a call from a resident in Buchans who was very worried that the intravenous hookup in her husband's arm was going to become dislodged while being transported by ambulance to the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I ask the minister: Given the economic development that is happening and given the serious problems being caused to the travelling public, will you tell this House today that you will reconsider your decision and provide funds for this urgent situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe when the member stood she said that she did work on the Buchans highway every year that she was in government. Now, Mr. Speaker, she was in Cabinet for seven years. If she did any kind of work on the Buchans highway, she shouldn't need to be asking me to fix it today.

Mr. Speaker, we understand the problem with the Buchans highway, as we understand the problem with the Bonavista Highway, as we understand the problem with the Road to the Isles out in Twillingate District, as we understand the problems on the Baie Verte Peninsula, the Northern Peninsula and Labrador. We have a $142 million budget this year, one of the biggest in our history, and we will need many of them to deal with the neglect that they had when they were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a shameful display of arrogance!

In the past three years since you have been the government, there has been a new industry, new heavy equipment travelling over the road, and you haven't spent any money on it. That is why it is in the condition it is.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation or the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns the Duck Pond mine.

Minister, in the original environmental assessment documents which Aur Resources submitted to government there was no plan to have permanent bunkhouses on the mine site.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm that government will stick to their original plan that was approved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, not only can I confirm it but I can let the member know I confirmed it yesterday morning on CBC Radio in Central Newfoundland, that we would not support any move to that process. That has already been made public. Not only will I say that, but yesterday I received a call from the Mayor of Buchans, Mr. Corbett, to compliment the government on our support for his community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To compliment the government on our support for sticking to our guns for the people of Buchans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

We were very pleased to see support in the Budget for Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic and a continuation of the tuition freezes at the post-secondary institutions, but, Mr. Speaker, the student aid system still places far too great a debt burden on students, particularly those who do not live where the education is delivered and who must borrow many thousands more to cover transportation and accommodation costs to get a post-secondary education.

What is the minister's government prepared to do to end this discrimination against students from rural Newfoundland and Labrador who must travel and pay accommodation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, many of us, probably in this House of Assembly, are very well aware of the financial burden when you attend post-secondary institutions. Many of us probably come from rural Newfoundland and Labrador and probably had to pay for housing, transportation and other expenses that people who live very close to the university or the institution do not necessarily have to pay.

Mr. Speaker, this government has made some significant contributions to the post-secondary system, and our White Paper contribution is for $90 million. This year alone, the education budget for both the K-12 and post-secondary, put an extra $100 million into education.

Mr. Speaker, although we cannot solve all of the issues at one time, one commitment that this government made - and we have lived up to that commitment - is we have kept the tuition frozen for three years at university to enable people to be able to afford their education and make it more accessible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is probably aware that 40 per cent of university graduates in Newfoundland and Labrador have a greater than $25,000 student debt load at the end of receiving a degree; three times the Canadian average. Now, Mr. Speaker, most of these are rural Newfoundland and Labrador students.

Will this minister, and her government, move towards a needs based grant program to allow to level the playing field for students from rural Newfoundland and Labrador? How long, Mr. Speaker, if she is aware of this problem, is she and her government prepared to allow this kind of discrimination to continue in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the education of our young people is a number one priority for this government. There are a number of issues within the post-secondary system, and this government is very much committed to addressing those issues.

Mr. Speaker, because of all the issues, we cannot possibly address every single issue in the one Budget but we have certainly made some significant contributions to the education system. In saying that, I am certainly quite open to meeting with different groups. As a matter of fact, I am meeting with the Canadian Federation of Students tomorrow morning and listening to their issues and their concerns because, as we move forward, we will have to address all the priorities and the issues as we are able to do so, and at no way am I closing the door to say that this issue is not a priority or not important. It is something we will continue to look into and when we are in a position that we are able to address it, we certainly will.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

The previous Liberal Government of Canada committed to $20 million over five years for a Goose Bay diversification fund and $9 million for a civilian airport terminal. They also committed to $96 million under the Northern Access Initiative, which included basing a Coast Guard ship in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask today: What discussions have happened? What lobby has the Premier been engaged in to ensure that this $125 million commitment of federal money gets invested in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There has been correspondence, I may say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that gives this government the assurance and the reassurance that the commitments that have been made by the federal government for 5 Wing Goose Bay will, in fact, be honoured and maintained.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between myself and the regional minister. There have been discussions between myself and officials from the Department of the Minister of National Defence and, in fact, the Premier has been given assurances by the new Minister of National Defence that 5 Wing Goose Bay is here to stay, and that commitments that have been made by this new federal Conservative government will be honoured. I can say in addition to that, not only will this new federal Conservative government honour these commitments, but the member can be assured that this Progressive Conservative provincial government will ensure that these commitments are, in fact, met and maintained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling me that there will be a new civilian airport in Goose Bay, that there will be a Coast Guard ship base for Search and Rescue and that there will be a $20 million diversification fund honoured. That is what I am hearing him say today, because the people in Goose Bay do not know that, I say to you, minister.

The other thing I would like to ask you is that in Stephen Harper's bid to become the Prime Minister of Canada, he came into Labrador and announced that he would move 650 regular force personnel into 5 Wing Goose Bay, the same commitment he made at two other bases across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, because there was no mention of it in the Throne Speech: When are we going to see the 650 military personnel on the ground in Goose Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The commitment that the federal government has maintained and has made for 5 Wing Goose, which will be obviously supported and endorsed clearly by this government, is as follows: a new rapid reaction army battalion and a new long range unmanned ariel vehicle squadron at CFB Goose Bay resulting, I might add, in some 750 troops on the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is the commitment that was given by the new Minister of National Defence, Minister O'Connor. Again, I can reassure the hon. member, that is the commitment that this particular government will ensure is kept as we move forward for the maintenance, the survival and the very great future that is in store for 5 Wing Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I would like to remind the minister that the Prime Minister also said that there would be a foreign military training program ongoing in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Today we have no foreign military training at 5 Wing Goose Bay, I say to you, Minister.

I would like to ask you, again: Where is the aggressive lobby tactics on behalf of your government? When are we going to see the troops on the ground in Goose Bay? When are we going to see the foreign military activity? When are we going to see the $125 million in cash in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, our Premier has received the assurances from the new federal Minister of National Defence. Our office in Intergovernmental Affairs has received, as well, similar assurances.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, I am travelling to Goose Bay; I am meeting with GBAC; I am meeting with the town council in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; I am meeting with the Citizens Collation. I will be accompanied by my colleague, the Member for Lake Melville. Shortly after the Easter period, I will be undertaking a trip as well to Ottawa to meet with my federal government counterpart.

Mr. Speaker, what is important here is that we have a commitment that has been given by this new federal government, this new Conservative government for the well-being and the future of 5 Wing Goose. It is our role to ensure that this commitment is honoured and maintained. It is my particular role, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to see to it that this, in fact, will be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, since forming government the members opposite made the decision to close weigh scales in Foxtrap and at Port aux Basques. After realizing they were wrong, they reversed that decision.

I ask the Minister of Government Services: Will she explain what the Minister of Finance meant when he said they will be strategically reactivating these weigh scales? Will the service be reinstated as it was before this government cut it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I thank the hon. member for his question.

I will say this, that when this government took office we faced a very serious financial situation here and we made a very prudent decision to close down the weigh scales. We do not see any clear evidence that it jeopardized road safety, but I will say to the hon. member, that before we took office the weigh scales in Port aux Basques were not working for a year. But, we have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: We also are now opening the weigh scales in Port aux Basques because I have had consultations with the mayor and the town clerk in Port aux Basques who have put forth their arguments and legitimate reasons why they felt that the weigh scales should be open.

Also, we have decided to open up the Foxtrap weigh scales as well. Mr. Speaker, we will be monitoring and enforcing with our openings of our weigh scales.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for a very brief supplementary.

MR. SWEENEY: I guess, Mr. Speaker, if they call, we will get everything reinstated back in the Province that government has closed.

Mr. Speaker, another area where this government is trying to pull the wool over the people's eyes is in terms of fee reductions. In the Budget of 2004 this government increased fees, service charges and fines to the tune of almost $26 million. Now this year they have reduced them by a stingy $1.5 million.

I ask the minister: Does she really expect people to believe this is a big break for the average person?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. We have time for a very brief reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member only picks one line out of a Budget Speech and reads it. One line said $1.95 million, he forgot to read on and tell us and find out that we are reducing almost $2 million reduction in a fee based on liquor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to hear the answer. There are hundreds of establishments across Newfoundland and Labrador that sell liquor, that had to pay 12 per cent more than the average consumer paid to buy it at a liquor store. We eliminated that, 3 per cent last year, another 9 per cent, $1.95 million.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will tell him, everything we do is strategic on this side. It is not ad hoc, like they do on that side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

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

I am pleased today to submit the 2005 Annual Report for the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to move to Motion 3, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to Move that the House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, known as Bill 3.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is dated 15 March 2006.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2006, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd: Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House.

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 Committee is now ready to hear debate on Bill 3, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 3, and on the resolution that accompanies that particular bill.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just have a few general comments on Bill 3. I know my colleague the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and my colleague the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, on the two specific aspects of the special warrant, are certainly prepared to answer any specific questions on those aspects that pertain to their respective departments, because these were the two areas mentioned here in the bill emanated from those respective areas.

The first one was an extra vote of $24 million under Ex-Gratia and Other Payments. That is in the Estimates Book, 2.1.02., and it is under Employee Benefits for the $24 million. That has been clearly stated there. The Premier had a statement here in this House on that. He responded to a letter from union leaders dealing with an ex-gratia payment to those unions to deal with issues that were referenced in that particular letter.

The other issue here, under Civil Law, 2.01.01, under the Department of Justice, there was an amount. In the estimates there was $3 million for Allowances and Assistance. That has been asked to be increased to $7 million, an extra $4 million here under Supplementary Supply.

In total, both of these bills are $28 million extra funding needed to be able to be expended to meet the needs of that department in the fiscal year 2005-2006.

Those are the specific references to these. I am sure the ministers can certainly answer any questions. I think it has been very clearly stated here in the House by the Premier of the Province on the ex gratia payment. I think everybody is quite familiar with that, and that has certainly been articulated quite well out in the public forum too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This being a money bill, of course, one can address pretty wide latitude of what you might speak to. I do, in fact, have some particular questions for the minister concerning Bill 3 and the details of it.

First of all, on the ex gratia payment piece of $24 million: I think the Premier was quite clear in his comments when he read the Ministerial Statement in this House some time ago that it was in response to a letter he had received from four or five of the different unions groups that were being impacted by this.

There is nobody, I don't believe, who has any disagreement with the fact that the payment is going to be made. That is not the nature of my questions or the concerns. Some more detailed questions and specifics, I guess, is where I would like to go today. Maybe the minister, or one of the ministers, can give some details in that regard.

There are two parts in this particular Supplementary Supply Bill. One concerns the issue of the $24 million payment for the pay equity piece, and the other piece is the $4 million under the Department of Justice. We haven't had an opportunity yet, and I am sure we will hear, as the minister said, from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in regard to the $4 million. On the $24 million piece - because we have an audience not only in the gallery, of course, but we have a lot of people in this Province who watch these proceedings and would like to have a level of detail and understanding as to what is happening here.

For the record, as I understand it as a person who works here, what we are doing here with this bill is, the government last year didn't have this $24 million in their Budget. What they did was they came to this agreement with these unions based upon their request, and government said: We will go along and give you the $24 million that you requested. When that happened, of course, and it wasn't budgeted for, government needed a mechanism whereby they can come up with that money. What you do is you issue a Special Warrant, but whenever you do that, you must come back to this House after and get approval for the money that you have agreed to spend. So that is what we are dealing with here. Government has already decided they are going to spend this money. Now they are here in the House, and they did it by way of a process called a Special Warrant, and now there here with a piece of legislation to actually dot the i's and cross the t's, as it were, and get authorization to expend that money. So, that is the process on why we are here and what we are doing.

The $24 million, for those who may not have heard, is that we have had an issue in this Province for quite some time, where it was alleged of going back to 1989, that women were not paid the same rates of pay for the same positions and the same work as male workers. That led to court action, in fact, in our Supreme Court of Newfoundland. It went to our Court of Appeal and, ultimately, was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. What had happened is the courts recommended, the lower courts that is, that the money should be paid. The pay equity should be paid. There should be equity in payment to whether you are a male or a female, but the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Province, who did not want to pay it, were justified, shall we say, in not paying it at that time because of their financial circumstances.

So, the Supreme Court of Canada said, aside from the issue of whether it should or should not be paid, the Supreme Court of Canada felt that the government of day was okay not to pay it because they did not have the money. So, that went on and there has been a sore spot there with our workers in this Province, as it should be and should have been for many, many years. Finally, the unions got together and came back, as the Premier said in his statement, read a letter and said: Look, we would like to have $24 million. Let's get past this issue and let's move on, so that this issue is dead and gone, regardless of what the court said, and let's move forward with a level playing field from here on in.

I have no difficulty whatsoever with the process as to what has happened here and the fact that the monies are being paid. Some questions I would like to have a response to is - and I realize that $24 million, as well, is the exact number, as I understand it, that was requested by the unions that put the letter forward. So, we do not have any disagreement between what the unions asked for and what the government has agreed to give. But, I am wondering if someone in the government side can tell us what the full package was initially requested in order to fix the pay equity problem? As I understand it, it wasn't $24 million. I think, for the record again, and people can be fully informed: Can we have the details as to what was the full package requested versus what was agreed to, the $24 million?

The other question I had, and I think we need to know, is: Now that we have an agreement on how much is going to be paid, how will it be paid and when will it be paid? I think that is important because there are a lot of workers, particularly those impacted, like female workers in our Province, who are going to get the benefit of this money. People are saying: Well, how much will I get? Am I eligible? What criteria has been set out so that I know what piece of the $24 million I am going to get? Who is it going to be paid to? Will it only be paid to females who are members of the five unions who wrote the letter? I would think government, to be equitable, is not going to make a pay equity settlement only to see it apply to certain people. Or did those five unions include everybody? That kind of information.

How many females in the Province are going to be positively impacted by this decision, and how much will they get? Is there any formula already decided, that this is the formula that will be paid, or is that something that will have to be worked out in the future? We did not get many details. We know there was a decision made to pay it but it is a big piece to know: Who is going to get it, when are they going to get it and how much are they going to get? Those are the things that I am hearing from people saying: How do we work through this process? Now, I realize we are only here today to get the official approval, but as piece and parcel of that package, we need to have and ought to have some answers to those questions.

So, those are the questions that I would throw out first, and I hope one of the ministers who are going to speak today - whether it be the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Education or the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women - might address some of those questions and provide us with some level of detail with regards to that issue.

The other one here on this paper today talks about $4 million extra that has been agreed to spend in the Department of Justice. It comes under a heading called allowances and assistance. Now that is a pretty broad category, allowances and assistance. Having been the Minister of Justice for some time myself, God knows what you could put under that heading, allowances and assistance.

I look forward, again, to getting some specifics from the minister as to what this $4 million is for. Is it being paid because we need extra RNC officers? Is it being paid because we need new staff or have more staff? Is it being paid because we are going to do some work to the penitentiary? Are we hiring more lawyers? If so, how many are we hiring? We need to have some details. It is one thing to go spend $4 million of the peoples' money but people want to know what you are spending it on, and that is our role as an Opposition, to find out what you are going to spend it on. I am very pleased to see that you have it to spend, but the next question is: Is it being spent properly and responsibly?

I look forward to the Minister of Justice providing me with some level of detail in that regard. I have had some indication that it might involve a civil settlement or a lawsuit settlement of some kind. If that is the case, whatever level of detail the minister can offer in that regard. Was it as a result of a court case? If so, what court case? What was the nature of the court case? How many people were involved in the case and so on?

So, the breakdown as to how that money was used and utilized would be very important because I firmly believe that it is not only proper to do the right thing, but it is right to do the proper thing. The proper thing includes being fully informed so that people understand where the money is going.

That is all the comments I have at this time. I look forward to one of the ministers responding. Again, for the people who might not be familiar with it, this is one process in the House of Assembly where you usually have ten minutes to speak each and you can go back and forward a number of times. So, I put those questions and concerns out there, and I look forward to government providing us with some level of detail and we will see where it goes from there.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I rise because I want to address some of the questions with regards to the voluntary or the ex gratia payment that was paid to the five unions, because there were some questions asked about that.

One thing behind all of this is the fact that this government is committed to advancing the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador. In order to advance the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to make sure that they are able to share in both the economic and social benefits of this Province. Mr. Chair, that is something that we have committed to do. We have made a commitment that women's voices will be heard and that is something that transcends many different departments within government, that we have to recognize and value the role that women play.

Mr. Chair, as we all know, the whole issue of pay equity is something that was rooted back to 1988 to 1991. At that time, as we are trying to advance the rights of women in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it was certainly noted that there was not a fairness of the pay scales between the work done by men and women. There was a deliberate effort - and so there should have been at the time - to make sure that women were treated in an equitable manner within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were agreements made by the government at the time with the unions to ensure that women would be compensated in a very fair manner. Mr. Chair, the Province found themselves, in 1991, where they felt they were unable to meet these demands because of their fiscal situation at that time. Therefore, the agreement that had been struck was not honoured. As a result of that, the unions exercised every legal right they had in order to address what they felt was inequitable treatment, and particularly against women. Mr. Chair, that went right to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada felt that the government acted in a way that was appropriate based on their fiscal situation at that time.

What is really surprising is that we have heard many times that when we came into government, in 2003, that there was sufficient money in government. We felt there wasn't and we felt we had to take some measures at that time to deal with the fiscal realities. We hear over and over that we exaggerated the situation. One thing I think that is key to that: If we were exaggerating that situation and that meant that there had been money in the coffers up to that point in time, I think that would have been a priority that would have been addressed for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador. It wasn't and it went right to the Supreme Court of Canada. At that point in time, every legal avenue had been exhausted, so technically, from a legal perspective, the issue of pay equity could not go any further.

However, the five unions involved in this did not necessarily feel that was the end of the issue and they continued to remind government that they felt there was some unfairness or some inequity. As a result of that, as we heard when the Premier rose and read the letter from the five unions, they understood that pay equity was an issue that had been fought to the very end, at the Supreme Court of Canada. No matter how we look at it, it will never be classified as a moral victory for the people who were affected.

Because there were no legal avenues and the pay equity issue had been fought as far as it could, the unions felt that there still should be some way to address the inequity that had happened. Realizing that we were not able to address pay equity, they asked us, on a volunteer basis, if we would make this one-time payment, this ex gratia payment, of $24 million, and that is exactly what this government did. By doing that, we certainly have made a tangible response to an issue that the unions have kept in the public view for a long time, and one that certainly guarantees that women's voices will be heard.

In doing so, some of the questions that were asked by the hon. member talked about the amount of money, where the $24 million came from, and how the money will be administered. Well, Mr. Chair, the $24 million was in the letters that had been written to the Premier. That is where that amount came from. Up until that particular letter and the exact amount that the unions were asking for, there were always various numbers being floated around. They ranged anywhere from about $12 million to about $300 million. When we actually received correspondence from the union with an ask of an ex gratia payment, it was in the amount of $24 million and we were able to make that payment - something of which I am very proud, being affiliated with this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: The other information requested is: How will this money be administered? Well, this payment was made to the unions in a lump sum of $24 million and it will be up to the unions how they administer that money, but it was certainly our intent that we paid this money so that they could deal with some of the issues that they were bringing forward to government. The actual payments, and how they are going to make their payments, will be determined by the unions involved; however, government has also committed that if, for any reasons, they need some information and we have that information, we are able to provide it either through government or through health boards, we are committed to being able to provide that information for them and we will do just that.

That is basically - they asked in writing for the $24 million. We agreed to pay the $24 million. It is a voluntary ex gratia payment and, Mr. Chairman, how that fund will be administered is within the sole jurisdiction of the unions involved.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the comments of the minister. I do not know if your answers have raised more questions. It partially informed me, I guess, in a sense that we know now that the money is going to, I believe the words you used, the unions.

Maybe you could take us to the next level now of detail, because I understand that the unions that you referred to include the Association of Allied Health Professionals, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1615, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union.

The other question I have is, we see here the use of the word ex gratia payment. Maybe the minister might comment, or one of the ministers, as to: What do you mean by the use of the word ex gratia? Because I think it is very important that we understand again why it is under that particular heading.

The normal, every day, common usage of the word ex-gratia, as I understand it, is that we agree, without any admissions of liability or whatever, that we are going to make this payment as you requested. If that is the understanding that government gave it on - for example, we are not saying, by doing this, there was an admission of liability - that would be my understanding of it. That is what the word usually means. Using the word ex-gratia, and the fact that you are not saying you are opening yourself up to any liability, does not mean that you have not put some conditions on the money.

For example, how do we know, or do we know - that is where my question is going here - do we know that the Association of Allied Health Professionals, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1615, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union represent all - all - of the females who should, and ought, benefit from a government payment to look at and address the pay equity situation?

That is my question. If the answer to that question is yes, we have gone a long ways to solving that problem; because, surely, we would not to find out in a month's time, or a year's time, that some female worker in this Province, for some reason, did not get compensated. If we are going to do this, we have to be fair to everybody. The Supreme Court of Canada has already decided that we, government, discriminated against women on this issue, so let's not leave anybody out in the cold here.

I would like some clarification, if we could, from the minister as to: Is everybody covered by these unions that you wrote this cheque to? I would like to know, as I said earlier, how much of the money went to each union. How many members are we talking about, totally? How many female workers in this Province are going to benefit from the settlement, and how do you determine it? Is it based on the seniority they had? As I understand it from the minister, you have left that to the unions to administer.

That raises a whole spectre of other questions for me. It is one thing of government to have money and to make a decision that they are going to right a wrong. I said from day one, I applauded government for trying to right that wrong, but there is also a responsibility here, if you are going to spend $24 million, to have some idea to see that it is going to be fairly handled, who is going to handle it, and what are the conditions of dispersing it. Now, I did not gather from the minister's comments that there have been any conditions whatsoever attached to the union's split and division of this money.

It is not usual, I am sure, in the history of any government, that you just cut a cheque for $24 million and say: We appreciate your problem. We agree with you. We are going to try to right the wrong. Here is $24 million - and they don't say anything else.

What assurance does government have that everybody is covered, and how it is going to be divided? It is not going to look pretty at the end of the day if somebody comes forward and says: Whoa, I didn't get my fair share. Yes, I was a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees but, because I left - I was a worker who was affected by this in 1989 but it so happened, for whatever reason, I ceased to be a member in 1998. Does that member get credit now for the period that she was there from 1989 to 1998, or is she not going to get credit because she is no longer a registered member of the union?

Those are the kinds of questions, and government, I suggest, have an obligation to see that is done, because this is all about fairness and equity. We have to be sure that we are fair and equitable to all women who should share in it.

I would suggest to the minister that simply cutting a cheque because you are nice people and because we have it in the bank, and giving it to the unions and saying: Here, go figure it out yourself - that is not what this argument started about. This argument started out because government discriminated against the women. If government is going to make the payment, ex gratia or not, government has an obligation to see that the problem is addressed. You don't just throw the money at them.

I think the people of the Province, and I am sure all of the women of the Province, have a right to know. You just don't pat yourself on the back and say: Thank you very much for the $24 million.

How do we know, and what assurance do they have, particularly? Not only that we know - more importantly, how do the women, all women, who have been a member, or a party associated with, worked for, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, be assured they get their share? Is it just unionized women who are entitled to a share? Is it just unionized women? What about any other women who worked for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in any capacity from 1989, when the issue arose, until now, when you make this ex gratia payment in 2006, and they were not a member of a union but they worked for government? It was a woman. They were women. They did get discriminated against. They were not unionized. Do they or do they not get a share? Do they or do they not get a share?

Pretty straightforward questions, pretty straightforward questions, and maybe one of the ministers can give an answer so that the people of the Province, particularly the women, can get at least a full picture of what has happened here, to be assured that the ultimate equity is achieved.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I wasn't going to participate in this debate this afternoon, but I feel obliged and motivated to do so, to be frank with you.

First of all, my colleague, the Minister of Education and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, outlined very clearly what occurred and how we got to this point. We tried to rectify a situation. The member opposite talks about ex gratia, and what that means. Yes, it means that it is an ex gratia payment, voluntary, with no recognition of any other further liabilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: No obligations.

MR. E. BYRNE: No obligation, that is exactly right.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what they asked for.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly right. My colleague just said, that is exactly what unions asked for.

He has asked a question: Does it include everybody? Because we would not want to get ourselves into a situation where some were left out. The answer to that is also yes. The answer is that, yes, it does include everybody.

The third point he asked was: How will that be split up amongst them? Well, that is in the process of being worked out, based upon information, looking at past - and we would, as the minister said, my colleague said, make any and all information readily available to those unions who were part of signing that, for recognition of what went on. So, that would be worked out in terms of the information as it comes forward. This has all been vetted through their own executive boards.

That is not what motivated me to get up. You know, the great defender, and defenders across the way, who are apparently saying these things now.... I have to point out a fact for anybody who wants to listen, or people who may be watching. The member who just spoke opposite me was the Minister of Justice and Attorney General who brought this action not to get involved in pay equity to the Supreme Court of the country. To listen to that member today, you wouldn't know but they had absolutely nothing to do with how we arrived at the place we are in. You wouldn't know but this is some sort of situation that we have not acknowledge anything. The fact of the matter is, the place that we found ourselves in was a place that the former Administration, by challenging this and bringing it to the Supreme Court, put us in. I think we need to acknowledge that. That is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion.

From our perspective, let me be absolutely and abundantly clear, for some time we felt - based upon the letter that we received - that a reasonable, acceptable proposal had been put forward to government. It was a reasonable and acceptable proposal that reflected the spirit of partnership for this issue. Ex-gratia was an important word because it means no obligation or future liability, but it also meant that the unions had come together to work with this government to try to at least rectify a situation that that member, as the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General who led the charge on bringing this to the Supreme Court, who now stands up -

AN HON. MEMBER: They said they had lots of money.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, they said that they had lots of money when they were there.

- who now stands up and - I am perplexed by his commentary, and in particular by his tone.

This is a good initiative. This is a not only a good initiative, it is a great initiative. It reflects the reality that this government saw as a priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We had no obligation to fix this mistake, or even attempt to, but we did it anyway. We had no obligation to look at fifty-eight widows with respect to workers' compensation, but we did it anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the fact of it, and that has been reflected in editorials across the Province, in this city, of trying to right past wrongs to where we can, when we can get to them, but it speaks to our motivation as well. When we feel there are situations that have been presented to us from the past that we feel strongly about and motivated about, if we can find a way forward to solve it then we will.

I want to compliment the five unions publicly. I know it has been done. The Premier has done it, my colleagues have done it, but this bill is now before the House for debate and this is a significant initiative that deserves support, and it deserves support now. This is an initiative that rectifies a past wrong. It acknowledges a way forward in partnership with the unions. It is all-encompassing. We will make any and all information available so that the unions themselves, and their members, can have access to whatever they need to support how that will get dispersed. Mr. Chair, I ask you: What is wrong with that initiative?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is nice to hear from the Government House Leader.

Just so there is no misunderstanding here, let there be no misunderstanding, because I heard references to a couple of issues: number one, about my tone; number two, the fact that I was the former Minister of Justice and so on, as if, because of that fact, I ought to know better and should not ask questions.

Let's get some facts, if the Government House Leader wants facts. First of all, in terms of where I stand on the issue, I will be voting in support of this bill, absolutely, no question about it. As I said earlier, and I have stated publicly, I agree with the fact that this government - and I applauded this government for making this payment of $24 million. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.

The fact that I agree with your initiative, which I think is a great initiative, the fact that I think it is finally proper and time that a wrong has been righted, does not take away from my right to ask questions about the bill. The purpose here, if we were to come into this House and, every time a piece of legislation dropped, someone gets up and asks questions and you say: I don't like your tone, or you are being negative about this proposal - absolutely not. For example, on the Minister of Justice issue, yes, I was the Minister of Justice when this went to the Supreme Court of Canada on a legal issue: Could the government do what they did in their piece of legislation? I was the minister who made that decision, that we go to the Supreme Court of Canada to see if that legislation was valid; and, lo and behold, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed. The Supreme Court of Canada. It was not this person who was the minister who said yes to that. I was only the minister who took it to the highest court in the land and said: Tell us, is this valid or not? Sure enough, the Supreme Court of Canada said the piece of legislation was justified under those circumstances that existed financially from 1988 to 1991. That is all the court case was about.

Unfortunately, no government, as I know, until now has any money to address the problem. As I say, they have the money. Good move, right move, just move, in what you did, but that brings me back, still, to my questions. I will not stop asking questions, because I had them and I didn't get the answers. Contrary to what the Government House Leader might say, I didn't get the answers, and I will keep looking for them. I will tell you what: Maybe you are not listening, because I asked the questions of the Minister who is Responsible for the Status of Women. I am sure when she gets an opportunity now, instead of berating anybody or talking about my tone, maybe she will get up and, I am sure, give me the answers. That is all this is about. I am here trying to get answers to questions which I have a perfectly legitimate right to do.

Now, back to the gist of the situation here: This government - and talk about tone! You are the government, for example, that had an open and transparency issue. You are the government that passed the Transparency Act. You made it a law of this Province. Transparency: That means to be open to everybody. The minute someone gets to their feet and asks a question: Oh my God! You are negative, you are naysayers, you are doomsayers, you are troublemakers. Please, don't be so defensive. I just posed a question, and if you have the information give it to me. If you don't have the answers, fine, tell me you don't have the answers.

I say to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women again: You have told us, in your initial comments, that you have given the $24 million cheque to the unions. One of my questions was: Will this cover off all women? Now, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and we were back and forth on this debate, hasn't risen since and told me who is covered and who is not, in fairness to her. That is fine, and I accept the word of the minister. I am saying that the debate here - at that point at least - was between myself and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. She has been very forthcoming, and she has no problem speaking for herself. She has been very forthcoming in this House and can certainly speak for herself.

The other question I asked was: Were there any conditions attached? When you gave the cheque - and again I haven't had the details - how much went to each union? Now, I think that is a pretty straightforward question. I don't see much negative about that. Somebody took a cheque, somebody gave it to six groups, and I am saying: How much did you give to each group? That is not a complicated question.

When I hear that somebody says, we gave the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, whatever the figure is, and does it for the rest of them, I got an answer. I haven't gotten that to date. That is all I am looking for. That is pretty straightforward, and I am sure the minister is looking to come up with some kind of answer to that question.

The other question, of course, I asked is: How do we know everybody is covered off? What assurances do we have that the $24 million is going to put this issue to rest once and for all, so that we do not have somebody coming back next year and saying: Look, I am sorry, I wasn't a member of that union but I was discriminated against? How do I get my equity? That is pretty straightforward.

Another legitimate question, I thought: What about some female person, who worked for the government during that time period, who is no longer a member of a union? Like, what mechanisms are in place? What if somebody left the union in 1996 for some reason, what assurances have government got? What process is in place? What criteria has been set up - is all I asked - to ensure that the equity, at the end of the day, went to everybody who should get it? That is pretty straightforward.

Now, the Government House Leader insists that I got the answers to that. I am still sitting here, after asking the questions, waiting for the minister to get up and give me an answer. He jumps up and says: You got them. She gave it to you. But, with all due respect, I have been listening here with my earphones on and I put the questions to her. We are trying to clarify things here and I do not have the answers.

So, those are the questions. Maybe we can move down the track and start to try to get some of the answers to them. But, let there be no mistake about it, at the end of the day, this person right here is going to vote in support of this piece of legislation because the principle of what you did here is absolutely proper, and I have no qualms about saying that. All I am saying is, let's not take something that is so well intentioned, so well motivated and the proper thing to do, and by some unknown or accidental purpose have somebody come back later and say we did not do far enough. That is all I am asking here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my hon. colleague here, the Government House Leader, because I, too, feel that the questions have been answered but I will speak again to clarify some of the points.

One, this is a voluntary ex gratia payment made to the five unions. How that money will be paid out will be done in concert between government and the unions as to how much goes to the unions. But, it is our understanding that this money, these funds will be available to the public servants who were denied pay equity during the public service restraint act in 1991.

Then we are getting this tone from the other side about this payment, and it almost seems like there is, in some way - although there is an admission that there is going to be support for it. One thing that stood in my mind, when the letter was read by the Premier in this House, the letter from the unions was read and the request was there for $24 million and the Premier stood and said that we would honour that payment, it was interesting to note that the hon. members opposite did not applaud that decision at the time; they sat there. The gallery applauded. We knew it was the right thing to do. We applauded, too. Now today they are talking about their tone and somewhat offended because it sounds like they may not be supportive, although they say they are.

Mr. Chair, that was a very telling moment in this House, very telling to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador and very telling to the people who were denied payment from 1988 to 1991. Mr. Chair, that spoke volumes; not just to me as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, but to people who are here and who are watching it. Today, when the tone was brought up again, they seemed to become very defensive over it.

Mr. Chair, the point of the matter is that the pay equity issue, as a legal issue, died in the Supreme Court of Canada a couple of years ago, back in 2004. However, the unions felt there was a ‘misjustice' done. Mr. Chair, quite frankly, I supported the idea that something needed to be done to rectify the situation. The five unions approached government in writing and requested a voluntary payment of $24 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a small amount.

MS BURKE: No, not a small mount of money by any means.

Mr. Chair, this government responded and we were able to meet that request that came from the unions. In addition to that, that money will be distributed to the unions, who in turn will administer those funds. In saying that, there was considerable work done on this issue in the last, probably fifteen years or longer, where they have significant information about the disbursement of funds and their members. They fought this. You have to understand that they went right to the Supreme Court of Canada with a legal team to address this. They know their information. They know the people who are affected by this.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, we are also prepared - if there is any information government can provide that is going to be requested, whether it is from government or from the health boards, we have made a commitment that we will provide that information. What we have done here is we have addressed an issue through this ex gratia voluntary payment that the unions requested and we are able to meet it. Mr. Chair, it does advance the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador and it should be supported by all parties of this House of Assembly. What happened back then in 1991 was something that had to be done, based on the financial situation of the Province at the time, and the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that. The legal options have been exhausted and the position of the government at that time was acknowledged.

What is really galling is the fact that sometimes we hear, from the members opposite, that in 2003 when we formed government, they say to us that we exaggerated the financial situation and that things were not as bad as we said they were, and that we should not have made some of the decisions that we have had to make over the last couple of years. Mr. Chair, my question is: If they felt the finances of this Province were not the same as we felt they were, why did they not rectify the situation when they had the opportunity and why did they let it go to the Supreme Court of Canada?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, that is very telling, because I cannot image that a Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who were not able to pay women for the work that they did and can sit there and say that their finances were in order and that this was not a priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I find that very hard to believe in this day and age.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, the legal avenues were exhausted and as a result, the unions - and I thank the unions for keeping this issue in the forefront. They understood that the issue, as it was, could not be resolved. So they decided together that they would approach this government, and they did, and it was an open process. The letter they sent us was actually read by the Premier in this House. The Premier read the letter, read the request that came from the unions, and we were able to honour that.

As I had indicated, this money will go to the unions and it is our understanding that they will use that to assist the people who were affected under the public service restraint act in 1991. The actual administration of the funds will be done by the unions. As I said, government will assist the unions in any way we can. If we have information that will help them identify people or provide valuable information, we are more than willing to provide that information to the unions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad to rise today and respond to this bill before us concerning pay equity. I support this pay equity measure 100 per cent. I only wish that while we were the former Administration we had the funds to be able to deliver on this important issue that is before us today.

Since government has made the announcement of settlement, I have had several e-mails. I think there is a fair amount of confusion out there, or maybe it is not confusion, it is probably a lack of information. Women are saying to me, they are not really sure how, or who, is going to be included in this. It is easy to include the ones who are currently working for unions, and the ones who are on the record as having worked from that period of 1988 to1991. There are several women, or lots of women, who have since retired. Also, there are probably women out there who have actually moved away from our Province. There are also women who may have been deceased prior to this settlement being awarded. These are all very legitimate questions that have been raised by females in the workplace, and females who are not in the workplace. They are wondering about these things.

There are a lot of questions, really. Will this be taxable? It is a lump sum payment. Will this be taxable? My understanding is that it cannot be counted towards anyone's pension, that it will not be considered to be part of anyone's pension who is currently working, and it will not be included in anyone's pension who are currently retired and received a government pension.

Another reason is, I heard the Minister of Education, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and she said the payment would be made in concert with the government and the unions. All we know at this point is that government and unions have reached a settlement of $24 million. I think what needs to be done at this point is, how will the payment be made? Will unions be presenting a list of their members to government, who would have worked during that period, and government will be verifying that list, or will government be supplying unions with that list?

When everything is settled, will government be cutting the cheques? How many women are involved? Are there hundreds, or are there thousands? Will government be cutting the cheques, or will the unions be cutting them? There are five unions involved. Will government be giving the largest union, which is NAPE, a cheque for, say, $12 million - I don't know - when they can ascertain that most of their members would come under this settlement? Will government be cutting a cheque to NAPE, for instance, for - I will just use a figure for an example - say, $12 million or $15 million, and then it will be up to NAPE to divvy up and decide then how it is going to be?

I wonder, also, is there any appeal mechanism in place for those who may not be aware that the settlement is actually given at this point? It might be someone who is living outside the county, and somebody might not find out about it until, say, two or three years down the road that there has been a settlement. Is there any mechanism in place where people can submit after a certain length of time? There might be a time limit on it? Or, it might be an estate, a beneficiary who might say: Well, my mother worked for the Government of Newfoundland in 1988. She is now, since, deceased. Can I, as her beneficiary, now make claim for what she would have gotten during that period of time?

All of these are legitimate questions that were asked by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader. It is not that we are against any of this; we are for all of this.

It is interesting, too; I wonder, what was the original full package asked by the five unions? Were the unions aware, at the time, of the settlement of what the surplus was going to be for this Government of Newfoundland this budget year? I know, in the Estimates book, when I look on page 9 of Employee Retirement Arrangements, under the heading 2.1.02., Ex-Gratia and Other Payments, that $24 million is in there in that section. That is where it is right now. I am just curious. That was done by way of special warrant before the end of March, so I am curious at this point: Were unions aware of the surplus that government has on their books for this year past? Also, had government not come and put out a special warrant before the end of March, government would have had to have shown a surplus of almost $105 million. Since the special warrant was issued, government now is reporting a surplus of $76.5 million.

Normally what happens during regular wage negotiations for public servants in this Province is, whatever settlement is attained by unions, management people inside of government who are not unionized normally get the same increment. That is what happens.

I think my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, raised a very valid question. The women who were in unions are taken care of by way of this settlement, but the women who worked as part of management at that particular time, in positions that were other than union, were they discriminated against? Has there been any measure for government to speak on their behalf? Will they be looked after?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we are doing today is simply asking questions. We are in favour of the settlement and I am sure that most of my colleagues, or all of them, will vote in favour of the settlement, but I am sure these particular questions are probably on the minds of all women who are affected or might be affected.

MR. E. BYRNE: When you were President of Treasury Board it obviously wasn't on your mind.

MS THISTLE: It certainly was on my mind. If we were in a financial position at the time - we had people lining up for cardiac surgery, for cancer treatment, and we did not have the money, but you have the money today because of oil.

Under the severance heading that is here, that I just mentioned, normal severance on an annual basis within government is somewhere within the range of $7 million to $8 million, but we notice here, even after pay equity, there is roughly $13.5 million forecast for severance for this coming year. That would only indicate one thing - there is going to be another round of layoffs in the public service - because there is almost double the normal severance amount included in the Budget for the upcoming year. That is a fact. There is nothing imaginary about that at all. That is a fact.

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is, we have not heard from unions themselves how many women are expected to be able to get part of this settlement. When can they expect this settlement? Would it be for this tax year coming up? I know it is allowed for in the Budget. When can they actually expect to receive a cheque in their hands? Will it be taxable? I am sure it will. Will it have any affect on their pensions? Probably not.

I am just wondering about retired people who are out there now - pensioners, in fact, who are currently out there now. They have made a request to government for indexing. They had that commitment while government were campaigning -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time for speaking has expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would like to address some of the issues being brought forward by the hon. member across.

Mr. Chair, as we have indicated, back in 1991 - and this is really, really important for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the women and the people who worked in the public service. Under the restraint act, they did not get pay equity that had been promised to them for the years from 1988 to 1991. We can say this over and over and over, but the fact of the matter is that the government of the day indicated that they did not have the financial resources to meet the commitments. It was fought through the legal processes, every legal avenue that was available, up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time they did not have the financial resources to meet that commitment. So, therefore, it was felt that under those conditions, the government acted in a prudent manner. However, that does not excuse the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador from the fact that the promise of the pay was never made. So, because there were no legal requirements, the issue of pay equity - when the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, the issue of pay equity and that argument died. It was over that day.

Now, we can say the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had a legal victory that day because the Supreme Court of Canada sided with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have to take it a step further. We have look at it and say, because we won it in the legal channels, does that necessarily mean, morally, that what happened to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador at that time was acceptable? The unions have an issue that they felt there was still an issue that needed to be resolved. They understood it could not be pay equity. They fought pay equity right to the Supreme Court of Canada. So, the unions together wrote this government and asked for an ex gratia voluntary payment of $24 million that will be paid to the unions and that they will administer those funds, and it is our understanding that they will be made available to the public servants who were denied pay equity in 1991. We have also agreed with the unions that if there is any information that this government can provide to assist them, that we will make that information available, and the health boards, as well, will do the same.

Now, what is particularly galling about being here today is to have somebody who was the President of Treasury Board -

AN HON. MEMBER: At the time.

MS BURKE: - and a woman's voice at the Cabinet table asking questions about how many women were affected. Well, do you know what? You are asking the questions about ten years too late. Where were you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Where were you when the women of Newfoundland and Labrador were knocking on your door and asking to be treated in a fair and equitable manner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Do you know where you were? You were fighting it in the Supreme Court of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: And, Mr. Chair, in addition to that, we have heard over and over, and particularly from the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, that we have exaggerated the fiscal situation that we found ourselves in, in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to members to my right, if they keep shouting across the House, the Chair will have no other choice but identify the member. I ask the member to respect the Minister of Education while she is being recognized by the Chair.

The hon. the Minister for Education and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, as I was saying, where was the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans when the unions were knocking on her door and asking to be treated in a fair and equitable manner?

Mr. Chair, she was at the Cabinet table and she was assisting her Cabinet colleagues in taking this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that the women of Newfoundland and Labrador, who worked in the public service from 1988 to 1991, did not share equitable within the pay of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, to ask questions today as to how many women, those questions, as I said, are a bit too late. I am sorry. Mr. Chair, they are the questions - if you want women to represent women of this Province and women need to have a strong voice in Cabinet they do not ask the questions three years after they get booted out of government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we realize that the unions continue to keep this as a public issue because morally, there was an issue here. People were denied equal pay for work of equal value. Whether we look back to 1988, or 2001, or 1970, Mr. Chair, the concept is that it was often women who were discriminated against based on the principles of pay equity.

We are at a point in time in our history where we are able to make a payment to the unions of $24 million; as they asked for. They fought this through the court system. We were unable to rectify it. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the government acted in a fair manner at the time. The unions felt that they had to accept the legal opinion. However, they asked for an ex gratia voluntary payment of $24 million. Mr. Chair, that is exactly what we are going to deliver to the unions of this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would also like to add, because if we are talking about who we have heard from since this decision has been made, we have heard from many, many women; many women who have contacted us, who have acknowledged that we have done the right thing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not afraid to acknowledge that there were mistakes made in the past and we are not hanging them on you. We are here to correct them. We are here still mopping up the mess that we have been doing since 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: It is our understanding that this $24 million will be divided between the unions in an agreement that the unions will come to and that they will then distribute the money. We understand it will be to the people who are affected back from 1988 to 1991. They have access to significant information. They have fought this through the court system. We have also agreed to provide any further information we can.

Mr. Chair, I find it very galling today that they can stand up and ask questions they should have been asking years ago so that the women of Newfoundland and Labrador share in the social and economic benefits of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. TAYLOR: When you are in the hole you should stop digging.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, if he is committed to rural communities around our Province, the first thing that he can do is agree with the members who are sitting around his Cabinet table. If they are going to walk the talk, they can agree that they are trying to promote rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If they are, it did not cost government any money to economically develop Aur Resources or the mine next to Millertown. So I cannot see why, with the surplus they have this year, that the Minister of Transportation and Works is not seeing the Buchans Highway as a priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am responding to a comment that was made across the floor to me, at this very moment, by the Minister of Transportation and Works.

I am surprised. You should be very glad and very happy about this debate that is taking place here today. You are making a step in the right direction, and I am not here to say anything negative whatsoever about your government. I am not going to go down that road. I am very pleased that your government finds themselves in a financial position to be able to make this payment. I am very happy that you can do it. The questions I am asking are not negative at all. They are questions that were e-mailed to me by women who had worked for government during the period of 1988 to 1991. There is no need to get defensive. There is absolutely no need to get defensive, because you still have to answer the questions that are pertainment to the women involved.

As I said earlier - you said I must know the numbers. Well, the Public Service changes. There are approximately 40,000 people employed by the Public Service of our Province. There are not that many here today, because a lot of them were laid off. As I said before, there is an extra $7 million here in the Estimates book for more to be laid off this year. So, there are going to be a lot less people working for our Public Service. When you say that I know the numbers, the numbers are changing. They are changing a lot since your government came to power. I am telling you what is going to happen. The numbers are changing. You take someone who worked in 1988. Anyone who worked in 1988, a lot of them are retired today. We might have females who worked during that period who are now deceased. Is there anything in place so that their family can have a portion of that cheque?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) years ago.

MS THISTLE: I am not saying that, Mr. Government House Leader.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am not saying that, Mr. Government House Leader.

What I am saying is, there are women out there today who are not working for our Public Service who are still able to collect on the pay equity for when they worked during that period of time.

Okay, if there is somebody out there not even aware that pay equity has been approved by your government, is there a mechanism in place so that if somebody comes up in five years' time, they just found out about it, is there a mechanism in place so that particular woman can submit her claim and say: Look, I worked there at that time and I was unaware that government had a settlement of $24 million. Is there any opportunity now for me to get in on that settlement?

That is a valid question, I would think. That is a valid question. Another one, too, what mechanisms are in place to protect the taxpayers? Are there any assurances that this government have in place in settling this matter that would look after any unforseen situations that might arise in the future? This is all about asking questions, because the settlement came about in a bit of a hurry. It was done before the end of March. Sometimes, when there is an issue that has been resolved in a matter of days, sometimes not all of the I's get dotted or the T's crossed. Our job, as Opposition, is to ask these questions. There is nothing derogative coming from me, in my line of questioning. I am simply relaying to government the questions that have been asked of me, in my position as the critic for Finance. There is no other motive at all when I get up here to speak.

I would like to know: When do you expect the package to be paid out? This is the same question I asked before: Will the union be cutting the cheque for their workers, or will they be presenting government with a list and then government will cut the cheque for all of the employees affected? Was there any arrangement made for taxes?

These are simple questions. You can joke about them, or you can do whatever you wish, but these are the questions that are on their minds. Those answers are not currently on the NAPE Web site. They are not currently on the NAPE Web site.

If government has these answers, I would only be too pleased if you would share them with the population.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is an honour and a privilege for me to get up here today to indicate my support to the payment of this sum of $24 million. As Premier Williams said when he made the announcement, this is an ex gratia payment that would amount to a tangible measure of solace for those who suffered more than others by the necessary action that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador took in meeting a financial crisis back in 1991.

I am extremely proud to be part of a government that is committed to advancing the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - not just in their social status but in their economic well-being as well.

This government has done that under the leadership of the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the Minister of Education, the leadership of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the leadership of the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Under that leadership, the cause of women in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be advanced.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I believe, referred to this as a pay equity payment. It is not a pay equity payment. I think it is important for everyone to realize that, that this was not a pay equity payment. It was an ex gratia payment, a payment that was made without any obligation to do so, a payment that was made without any legal liability to do so, and it was done in response to a letter, as the minister previously indicated, dated March 23, 2006, that five public sector unions wrote to the Premier and that he read in this House.

The unions, of course, have all been named: the Association of Allied Health Professionals, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. The letter referred to the history of litigation involving pay equity.

If members will recall, I believe it was back in 1988 or 1989 that the government of the day, I think it was the government of the hon. Brian Peckford, negotiated with the various unions a pay equity agreement to ensure that in the Public Service of this Province there will be equal pay for work of equal value. Of course, there was a great difficulty in determining the value of the payments that needed to made, the number of people who would be entitled to the payments, and accordingly it took a period of time - I believe it took four or five years - before the actually payment that needed to be made to bring about the pay equity could be determined.

The original intent was that the payments would be made over a period of time so that pay equity would be fully implemented by, I believe the year was approximately 1991. I may be mistaken on that particular year, but it was about that time. As I indicated, because of the difficulty in determining the amount of the payment and those entitled, that took five years. Then, at the end of that period of time, there was a necessity of a retroactive payment. At that time, I understand, Mr. Chair, the government of the day enacted the Public Sector Restraint Act, in 1991, which essentially wiped out the retroactive payment. In fact, the purpose of the legislation was to delay the implementation of the pay equity for three years, and the unions, of course, took the matter to court as previous speakers have, in fact, mentioned.

The matter was dealt with, I believe, initially in the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission. It was then determined in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and ultimately in the Supreme Court of Canada where the Government of Newfoundland was represented as one of the litigants. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation was valid, and that while the purpose of the legislation may have been discriminatory that the limits placed on the Charter of Rights of the union members were reasonable limits justified in a democratic society. After the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision, that was the end of the matter in terms of the pay equity case. In the meantime, the good news is that pay equity was, in fact, fully implemented in the Province of Newfoundland over a period of time.

Although the unions and people in the news talked about pay equity, it wasn't really pay equity. Pay equity has been fully implemented. They were talking about pay retroactivity. It was about getting back money that would have been paid if the government of Premier Wells had not passed the legislation in question.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier received the letter that I referred to earlier from the unions, and the unions sought an ex gratia payment. They recognized the fact that the legal issue had been dealt with, that the Supreme Court of Canada had made its decision, but they asked for an ex gratia payment, a voluntary payment of $24 million to recognize the value of the sacrifices made by our Province's public servants between 1988 and 1991. The Premier announced that his government would be fulfilling that request. As I said earlier, he indicated that the payment would be a tangible measure of solace for those who suffered more than others by the necessary action that the government had to meet in 1991 because of the financial difficulties in which the Province found itself at the time. The supply bill that is before us today is in keeping with that commitment. As the minister previously indicated, the funds are going to be paid to the union as directed by them and that the administration and the distribution of payments will be handled by the unions.

A number of the questions - I know the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - they asked, interestingly, are available on the Web site of the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. If I can refer to that, it is dated March 23, 2006, and it answers the questions: Who will receive how much of the $24 million and when? How much will each of the five unions receive? How many members are included in the 1988 to 1991 years? It talks about why the1988 to 1991 period was referenced. It talks about how the $24 million figure was reached. It asks, in particular, is this pay equity money? It asks, what is an ex gratia payment? The answer they gave at the time was that the $24 million payment is not pay equity money and it is not compensation of any kind, but it is an ex gratia payment; which is a payment that is not required. Recognizing that government was not legally required to do anything on this issue, the unions believe that the ex gratia payment provided a reasonable opportunity for the government to act morally on this matter and to recognize the sacrifices that public employees made between 1988 and 1991.

In terms of why the joint union request; NAPE indicates that, individually, each union had been advocating for a resolution to an issue that affected members within each group and they agreed that working together was the most successful means to achieving a reasonable solution to a moral issue. I am delighted that this government did, in fact, take the necessary action to provide - in the words of the Premier - that measure of solace.

Mr. Chair, there was recently an article in The Telegram, on March 25, which talks about how this government gave out the $24 million to try to close an awkward chapter in the Province's history. It talks about how the payment dates back to decisions that were made in 1991, when the Clyde Wells government instituted the public sector restraint act and legislated away retroactive pay equity payments dating back to 1988.

The article goes on to say that it is the fourth time in recent months that the government has done something almost unique in Canadian politics, in that it has used its healthy financial state to solve the wrongs done by past governments. It also comments about the fact that this is a strange and different way to do politics in this Province, and for that matter, in the entire country.

It refers to the comments of a political reporter in The Telegram's newsroom, who said: The government could just as easily frittered away every bit of the Atlantic Accord money on politically advantageous projects, like buildings or roads, but the Williams' government chose not to do this and that they deserve credit for this.

The article goes on to say: The Williams' government has made sensible choices that sometimes have not been the ones that would garner them the most possible political points, but they have done them because - and as the government has put it - that it is the right thing to do. And it was the right thing to do, Mr. Chairman. The article concludes by saying: More power to them.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his speaking time has expired.

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

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave?

MS JONES: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, I want to thank the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for giving me a few minutes just to conclude my remarks on this aspect of the legislation that we are discussing today. I will get up again to deal with another part of the legislation shortly.

With respect to the answer to the question: How much of the $24 million will each of the five unions receive? As I indicated earlier, that is a decision that the unions of course will make. They state in their Web site that they have agreed to a method of distribution that is based on the number of members who were affected during the 1988 to 1991 period within each union. They said: the final figures will be dependent upon the actual numbers of affected members and, as of March 2006, those numbers have not yet been determined. They also indicate that the actual numbers for each union, while not being confirmed - they estimate the potential eligibility at close to 20,000 members.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to add my comments to this particular bill, although I wasn't part of the government of the day, so I guess I can avoid those accusations about being part of it. It came about, from my understanding of the history of what happened there -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible)

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, I listened to you and I ask you for the courtesy of hearing me.

Mr. Chairman, it was a great injustice and I am honoured today to be able to stand here and support this particular bill. I am glad to see that the 20,000 people, the 20,000 women who were affected, are receiving some compensation for the money that they lost.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Minister of Education, you just hang on a second. I will come to you in a second, now, and we will talk about numbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: It is interesting, you know. Whenever one of us over here stand up, Mr. Chairman, all of a sudden we get all sorts of interjections that we do not know what we are talking about. Nobody put the expert's hat on you. The funny thing is, the only time we cannot get any information from you is when we ask a question. When we stand up with our views on a subject, all of a sudden we are wrong and you have all of the answers. I say to the Minister of Education, be patient.

When the Wells government made the decision not to be able to pay at that particular time, we went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed that, under the circumstances that the Province was in at that particular time - look at the situation the government was in at the time. In 1991-1992, what was on? The cod moratorium. The fishery was in the early stages of collapse and going to total collapse. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision not to pay that pay equity.

I say, if the government is so great and the Minister of Education is so powerful in her wisdom, in her fight to get this injustice undone, then why not give the full amount that was owed? Why not do that? I would stand and support that today as well, because the circumstances back then to now, government has money to a time when the government did not have money.

AN HON. MEMBER: We gave them exactly (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: That is a cute argument: We gave them exactly what they wanted.

The Premier said, on another occasion: We negotiated. They came to us with a proposal to put this to rest.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is nothing cute about it.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, who is -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, the Member for Mount Pearl is moving around.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Go to your seat and get up and expel all kinds of wisdom on the rest of the population out there.

MR. DENINE: I did that yesterday.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chair, we have a great gallery over there but, seeing we are going to go down this route about heckling me, seeing we are going to go down this path, I just want to say to the members opposite, with the exception of one or two over there who were recently elected, my memory serves me well, when a large number of women got the boot out through this door a couple of short years ago. I can keep on going, in recent years, more recent than that, when we lost deputy ministers who were female members of this government. We lost a minister. The Member for Topsail got the heave-ho from Cabinet by the Premier, and I didn't hear anybody over there then saying: Oh, no, you cannot do that. You cannot do that.

The Premier, in his statement, when he made the announcement for the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, said: Ms Marshall has left the Cabinet and I have strengthened my Cabinet now with the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

Pretty good. There were no outcries then about injustices or anything else. I do not hear any outcries now, either. I do not hear any outcries about the seniors, the ladies out there in this Province, the widows who are out there looking for home care. I do not hear any outcries. I do not see any of that - any increases in the Budget. I do not see any great amount of funding added into the Budget to repair their roofs, their windows, their doors. I do not see any of that in the Budget.

MR. J. BYRNE: A lot more than when you were there.

MR. SWEENEY: I am trying to understand what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I said there is a lot more in this Budget than when you were there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: I certainly hope there is, because we did not have the Atlantic Accord. We did not have a Liberal Prime Minister give us $2 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: We didn't have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I ask that people show their respect to the member and allow him to be heard.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is interesting that when you touch on a subject that they are not sure of, and when you mention the fluke -

MR. O'BRIEN: Not sure of? If there is one thing we are, it is sure.

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Gander, relax now. The Premier is not here watching you, so relax.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You took the stairs, you should have taken the elevator.

MR. SWEENEY: You missed out, you should have taken the elevator.

MR. O'BRIEN: I think you missed out.

MR. SWEENEY: Listen here, we will find out one of these days who missed out on what.

Mr. Chair, the members opposite have a tendency to forget when they wrap themselves up in the Atlantic Accord money. Their memories are very selective. They forget about the low and the middle income people out there. They forget about the fact that they gave Hickman Motors, the big GM dealership and the Ford dealership, they gave all of them a $500 fee reduction. Guess what? The poor fellow who is out there trying to get in the woods with his old woods truck has to pay $180, to try and heat his house. That wasn't reduced.

The great big announcement was the polar bear license was reduced. I tell you, the place is overrun with polar bears. The place is overrun with them!

Mr. Chair, it is difficult here to try to talk some sense into these people and to try to have some compassion with them. It is very difficult. It is obvious, Mr. Chair, that these members opposite have one thought in mind, and that is to carry the Premier on his podium, support him, prop him up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chair, the former Minister of Fisheries, the present Minister of Transportation and Works - we just had 130 people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, we just had 130 people in from rural Newfoundland, from the Green's Harbour and New Harbour area, showing their displeasure with this government, and their future over there, when they look at fish being shipped out of this Province unprocessed and they are over there with an owner of a plant who is willing to process it.

MR. REID: More than 50 per cent of them women, probably more than 80 per cent of them.

MR. SWEENEY: From my view of them this afternoon, I say to the Member for Fogo & Twillingate, there were a lot of women there today, concerned about their families.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chair, the Minister of Transportation and Works is drowning out the House here.

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chair, even the women - you talk about pay equity! - even the women right now who worked back in the 1980s and early 1990s are still being plagued and hounded by people in this government, employees of this government, for school tax, a fee that is over ten, twelve, fifteen years old. There is nobody standing up for them; except all types of ultimatums. Their income tax is being seized by the federal government and sent down to the Department of Finance here in this Province. Their Child Tax Credit, their HST rebate, every single bit of extra cash they could get into their pockets that was sent back in any form, is being taken to collect a bill that is fifteen and twenty years old. Most of it right now is interest; most of it.

Interestingly enough, a lot of these people are senior citizens, calling and not really understanding what is going on here. Why is this government being so hard on me? How come I cannot get my money back, my income tax back? Still, there is nobody standing up for these people.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chair, I will have other opportunities to examine this government and its failure towards women and other people in this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It gives me great pleasure today - it is something I feel very deeply about. Women's issues is something that has been very, very close to my heart all of my life, Mr. Chair. To be able to rise in this House today in support of this bill, I cannot really explain to you what it means. It is a great day, it was a great day when it was announced, it was a great day for women in this Province, and it was a great day for everyone in this Province who cares about justice and equality.

I listened very carefully to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. Last week in the House he said, in response to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's when he made his maiden speech - he stood immediately following and said how much he enjoyed the remarks from the MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's, and that he too was going to be humorous. I must tell him that he has had me laughing just about everyday since. He talked about the Atlantic Accord on that day.

MR. SWEENEY: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I am glad I have provided some humour for the minister, but the minister certainly has not shown much humour to rural Newfoundland, I will tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Chair, need I say anything more in terms of the amusing remarks that we hear on a daily basis coming from the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

Women have been marginalized in our society for a very, very long time, and when that happens, many people can stand and give lists as long as both arms why that is a good thing to do and the right thing to do. They can name all kinds of circumstances where that is appropriate and deemed a reasonable action. Well, it is not right and it has never been right, and it is important that we stand up for equality and for justice for women. That is why it is important to have women here in the House of Assembly where decisions are being made that affect their lives. That is why it is important to have women at the Cabinet table where decisions are being made affecting their lives, so that women are not marginalized when important decisions, such as how much they get paid regarding work of equal value, are being discussed and being made. That perspective needs to be there, women's voices need to be there.

It is particularly sad that we find ourselves in a circumstance here today, in the course of this debate, that it is very clear that whatever women's voices were around at the time, they certainly appear to have been silenced, because women were not heard. We are talking about a situation that happened from 1988 to 1991. The cod collapse had not happened, that did not happen until the next year. People had a rationale for treating a class of people, a gender of people, differently than they treated the other gender, and it was wrong.

You can make all kinds of arguments, Mr. Chair, about money and whether we had money or whether we did not have money. No doubt, there was certainly a strain in terms of the revenues coming into this Province, but I will guarantee you there was no restraint on the money that was being spent. In fact, the deficit of this Province was increased by almost $1 billion in just a five-year period. When we came to government, Mr. Chair, this was an issue that was raised not very often, certainly not in any kind of a public way, and certainly not by members of the Opposition, in terms of the pay equity case. I do acknowledge that the NDP did raise it. Every session of the House of Assembly it was raised by the NDP. There wasn't any other representation that I am aware of until last year. On International Women's Day the issue was raised publicly and there was a public cry to address this matter.

This matter, since our government took office, has always been on the radar. This has come back on a regular basis, time after time, in our Cabinet and in our caucus to discuss that there had been an injustice done. We waited for the Supreme Court decision. When the Supreme Court decision came down - and I can tell you that we were in Cabinet the day that the decision came down and it was not a happy day. The Newfoundland and Labrador government had won its case before the Supreme Court and we were not liable. When we were informed of the decision we were sitting in Cabinet. I am telling you it was not a good day.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pretty hollow, wasn't it?

MS DUNDERDALE: It was a pretty hollow victory.

We did not walk away, we did not wash our hands of it. We did not say, now it is all done, we can go home, we can forget about pay equity. We had enormous difficulties that we were dealing with in this Province, a huge, huge deficit, a fiscal mess on our hands, but we did not push it to one side and say: That is done, we do not have to worry about it anymore.

MR. E. BYRNE: We could have.

MS DUNDERDALE: We could have and we would have been perfectly justified. There was certainly no hue and cry coming from the members of the Opposition to do something about pay equity.

In the course of the last year, where the financial situation of the Province improved - this is the part where the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace got me laughing early last week when he said: Anybody could have brought home the Atlantic Accord. Anybody could have brought it home. I just do not know why anybody did not do it. We have had oil exploration and all kinds of contracts and all kinds of negotiations going on here since the late 1960s. How come somebody did not bring it home if it was so easy? Never done.

MR. TAYLOR: Four Premiers since Peckford signed the original one.

MS DUNDERDALE: Four Premiers. We have had Liberal governments. We have had Conservative governments. We have had influential people in the administration, the federal administration, and yet nobody was able to bring it home, except our Premier. That is a testimony to our Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: - and the skills and the knowledge that he is able to put to use on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We got the Atlantic Accord, and immediately when we started to see that we would have some money and we talked about how we would distribute the funds, guess what was on the table for discussion? Was there anyway that we would be able to address pay equity? We were not in a position, legally, that we could ever do - and we talked to people about it and we were not going to be able to do the full kit and caboodle of pay equity. We discussed this with the unions. The unions heard what we had to say and they came back to us. We said: we want to work together. See if there is something we can do to right this wrong. Is there some kind of a model that we can develop that we can right this wrong? The five unions got together - to their credit, they got together and came to us and said: Here is a proposal. Here is something that will go a long way in addressing the injustice that was done to women in the civil service in 1988 to 1991 when they were treated differently from another class of people. To the credit of the Premier, and the credit of this Cabinet and the credit of this whole government, we agreed to a $24 million ex gratia payment.

MR. TAYLOR: To be correct, I mean the injustice was not from 1988 to 1991. It was in 1991 when the bill, when the legislation was passed, repealing -

MS DUNDERDALE: Absolutely. The injustice was in 1991 when the wage increases that those women would have received were rolled back. So this action comes from this government. It comes because it recognizes government's equal place in society. It recognizes women's equal place in governance and this government recognizes justice issues and equality issues. This is not the first action. We did the same thing with the widows of the Worker's Compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We did it with the Teacher's Pension Fund. But here we have an elderly group of women who had been sorely mistreated, sorely mistreated by their government and because their -

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. minister -

MS DUNDERDALE: - cases had been ignored, that justice, too, has been righted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would like to rise today to talk to this piece of legislation pertaining to pay equity for women. Unlike, I guess, some people in the House of Assembly, they were around in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the decision was made by the government of the day not to pay out on the pay equity. I think, as a result of that, it went to court and that the court ruled that the government, if they were not in the financial position to pay the pay equity to the women of our Province, then they were not legally obligated to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly was not a part of the government of the day and I was not part of a government later that had the money that we have today. While I applaud the government for giving the women of our Province, at least those who worked for the government, the $24 million, I say to the member opposite, especially the Minister of Education, that she does not hold a monopoly on sympathy and caring for women; because I, certainly, would have liked to have done it.

What I find ironic, I guess, is that the government likes to try to play it both ways, because when we were in Opposition and we were running deficits, you were complaining, always complaining that we did not know how to handle the books and we were running deficits. So, I would take from that, that when the Minister of Finance and his colleagues were over here and they were saying we should not be running deficits, they certainly would not have wanted us to borrow the $100 million to give the money to the women in their pay equity agreement. So, you cannot say that we should have given it to them and then criticize us for running a deficit, as those opposite said; especially the Minister of Finance has been doing since 1993 when he was elected. Is it 1993 he was elected? Yes, 1993. He did it for ten years before he became the Minister of Finance himself and then he was converted on the road to Damascus and he has a whole different opinion.

I say to the members opposite, if you feel that you have a monopoly on sympathy and caring for women, why don't you give them all the money they are entitled to? You have a $76 million surplus this year. What that means is that you budgeted a certain amount that you were going to spend last year and you came in with $76 million in your pocket at the end of the day with the bills paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six hundred million.

MR. REID: Six hundred million, yes.

I say to the Minister of Education, if she wants to get up and applaud herself, why not give it all to them? I have a sister who happens to work as a cleaner in the hospital in Carbonear, and she would certainly love for you, I say to the Minister of Education, to give her all that she is entitled to. I called her the night it was announced and I thought it would certainly benefit her. She said: We were expecting what we were owed. Believe me, I talked to her about it when I was in Cabinet, and she was looking for pay equity. I am not condemning you for that. I said: At the end of the day, how much are you going to get? She said: Nothing compared to what we were owed.

I say to the minister, if she really wants to pat herself on the back and talk about the heart-wrenching discussions they had in Cabinet about trying to help those women, give them all the money; instead of letting your Finance Minister grab that away, like he does with every single cent he can find, and stuff it in his pocket. That is just his nature, and I am not condemning him for that. I wouldn't even want to let him loose at funeral homes years ago when they used to have to put the pennies in your eyes, because he would have had those too. That is just his nature, I say. If she wants to talk about sympathy and caring for women, she can do that. All she has to do is convince her Cabinet.

We haven't always seen that caring and sympathy for women coming from the Minister of Education, I can tell you. When the former Minister of Health, and a previous Auditor General, got flicked out of your Cabinet by the Premier - she says she resigned and maybe she did. I didn't hear you up talking about it, when the Premier let the Member who now represents Topsail go from his Cabinet, and then put out a statement saying, now that the Cabinet is increased by another male, the caliber of the Cabinet has increased, because she was dismissed. I didn't see any sympathy and caring for women at that time, and I don't see any sympathy and caring for other women in this Province, who outside the public service find themselves today in a very difficult situation because of the economy in rural parts of our Province.

Just last week, when the Member for Bonavista South was up talking about how things were a lot more rosy in his district than people would lead you to belief, and that people leave rural Newfoundland and Labrador because they want to, that very afternoon an individual from Cottlesville, a young woman from Cottlesville, e-mailed the Premier talking about how nice it would be to be leaving the Province and going to Alberta! She e-mailed the Premier about it, and I asked the Minister of Education if she would kindly like to respond to her e-mail, where she said that here she is, a woman in her early forties, with a brand new, two-story, four-bedroom house in the Town of Cottlesville who was leaving on April 16 with her eighteen-year-old daughter to join her husband in Fort McMurray, where they were going to occupy a one-bedroom apartment.

If you have sympathy and caring for the women of the Province, why don't you do something for the women such as the one in Cottlesville, or the many, many, many women in this Province who find themselves at home alone now trying to raise their families because their husbands are living in various parts of this country trying to eke out a living?

I say to the Minister of Education, who gallantly pats herself on the back here today, why didn't she pay attention to the people who were in the gallery today? Because it is commonly known - and I am talking about the women who were here this afternoon, who work in the fish plant, in Woodman's fish plant, in Trinity Bay? Everyone who knows anything about the fishery, you will find that the majority of people who work in fish plants in this Province are women. They are women. They sat in this gallery today, asking, because their own member would not meet with them - who happens to a woman, I might add - who represents Trinity-Bay de Verde. She will not meet with them. She could not arrange a meeting with the Fisheries Minister for them, and they are here asking to go to work, not asking for a government handout. All they are asking is to say: Give us our resources so that we can go back to work in New Harbour.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Just to point out to the Leader of the Opposition, because I know he would not want to be incorrect in his statements, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde has been meeting all afternoon with the people from her district.

I do want to pass that on to him, because I know he would not want to reflect any aspersions on another member that were not true.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the Government House Leader, that may be the story that you have been told, but when I walked out through the doors here, when these people left the gallery this afternoon, they wanted to know, they asked me how they could get a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries. I said: Well, get in touch with your MHA and ask her to arrange a meeting.

When I left them, they were exiting the building and heading for their buses. You might be right, and I am not saying you are not, but that is the case that I was told by the door an hour ago.

MS JOHNSON: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out for the Leader of the Opposition that I have met with these people most of the afternoon. In fact, I was just outside the House for a moment, then, sending off some information requests. I met with a group of people from New Harbour today at 1:00 p.m. I talked to the minister. He is currently in a meeting with another group from rural Newfoundland right now, and when he gets back I will have an answer for them. I confirmed with the people from my district that I will get back to them today with a time.

I would like to point that out for the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - because I would not want him to be misleading the House, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, you can rule on this after, but the hon. member just said I was misleading the House. Yesterday when that was said they argued against it.

Mr. Chairman, not to belabour the point, but when I met with her constituents at 12:00 o'clock today in my office, I was told by those people that they e-mailed you and asked for a meeting and you said no, you could not meet with them until you met with Mr. Rideout. I will show you the e-mail, if you want me to, and it is from you, because I have it here. If you want me to get into details about it here, I will table it so that you do not have to get up and talk about it. Here, I will table it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, all I am saying here is, if they think so much about women, why did this government send home 100 or 150 women this afternoon and said, go on welfare - rather than go to work in your plant, something that they wanted to do? That is what I ask, because this government would rather see that fish shipped somewhere in some other country for processing than to allow her constituents to do it.

Mr. Chairman, that is only another incident, but talk about the people who are leaving this Province. The Minister of Education, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, talks about the sympathy and the caring that she has for women. This particular government -

MS WHALEN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order.

I have been listening to the Opposition over there saying that women want sympathy. We do not want sympathy in our Province. We have never asked for sympathy.

I was one of the women who served on the pay equity committee years ago to bring this about, and I do take offence when you say we are looking for sympathy. We are not looking for sympathy. The word is empathy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister of Government Services, I did not say in any speech, or any words that I said this afternoon, that women were looking for sympathy. Go get Hansard. If I did say that, I apologize, but I know I did not. I said to the Minister of Education, when you say you have a monopoly on sympathy and caring for women. This is the same Minister of Education -

MS BURKE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: The point of order I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with the point that was just made by the Minister of Government Services, we want to empathize with women in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is a big difference between empathy and sympathy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I notice that the truth hurts. Every time I speak in this House of Assembly, they continuously rise on a point of order to distract me from what I am trying to say because they do not want to hear the truth.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: You are going to tell me that my time is up now, I guess, are you?

CHAIR: I want to remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. REID: Case in point, Mr. Chairman, case in point.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on the discussion taking place here today as well, and talk about the pay equity and the distribution that has been recently made. Before that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about and acknowledge the change that was made affecting women of this Province as well when it comes to the recent decision of workers' compensation, or the government on the workers' compensation commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: That has been a long-outstanding issue, Mr. Chairman, one that I have taken part in during the 1980s and 1990s in my role as a representative of labour. At conferences and conventions this was always a topic that came up for discussion, and there was quite a lobby from labour to have this changed all through the years. We are glad to see that it has finally taken place.

Mr. Chairman, we talk about women in the workplace, and pay equity. That is a symptom, but it goes further than that. I will just give you an example. Let's look around at the banks in this Proving and country, all of the banks. The majority, if you go in, you will see all female workers. There is probably one worker in most of the banks who is a male, and that person is the manager. I think that is a signal that women are not being promoted to the top jobs in these establishments. It is a female-dominated industry. Yet, for all, it is a male-dominated management system, and that is something that I think will change, has changed, slowly, but there is much more that needs to be done. The same thing if we look around at the executive boards of the corporations in this country. You will find they are male-dominated, while many of the employees, the majority, may be female workers.

In the labour movement, I am proud to say that we have taken some action on this quite a number of years ago. We have been out in front, really, with the Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress, and within the New Democratic Party. We have been out in front of the pack from all other organizations in understanding this and causing the changes to take place, that not only recognize the contribution that women have to make in our society, but also making sure that they have access to the leadership roles and decision making that is reflective of the organizations in which they serve.

I remember well, too, in the 1990s as being an active member of the labour movement, serving on the Federation of Labour executive as the Vice-President for a long number of years, and in my role with the Steel Workers' Union, where we met government on many, many occasions; where we had been on the steps of the Confederation Building, where we had been holding conferences to discuss the pay equity issue. That was a battle that raged on for many, many years in this Province. Finally, with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, it was really over and done, for all purposes and intents. I think government acknowledged that they made that...

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that we, as members of the New Democratic Party in this House, have raised this issue every single sitting of the Legislature, since I have been a member. I am sure that my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, raised it even prior to my coming to the Legislature some seven years ago. It has been raised consistently since that time. I recall, because myself and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi have made it something that we do. Each session of the House we raise this issue.

I remember, particularly, the last time it was raised. We raised it on the anniversary of the Montreal massacre - the most important and highlighted day in our history when it comes to the abuse of women. Nothing in our history can go any further than that. On the anniversary of that, we directed a question to the Premier of the Province and he responded. That is where the situation that exists today stems from - not that it was not talked about, not that there was not a lot of meetings about it and things of that nature, but we played our role in making sure that we kept this issue in the forefront and on the burner each and every opportunity that we had.

Mr. Chairman, one other injustice in this Province that needs to be corrected as well, and that is a serious injustice to a lot of working people, particularly people who get injured at work through no fault of their own, covered by Workers' Compensation - some of these are female, some are male. The one injustice that this minister or this government has to correct is the change that was made to the Workers' Compensation Commission in the 1990s again, when they clawed back the CPP from Workers' Compensation benefits. That has put many injured workers and their families in this Province down to the poverty level. They lose a lot of benefits anyway when it comes to their drug prescriptions; in some cases, to their dental. If they are not actively at work, many times they are not covered under a dental program. So, the price that they pay for becoming injured is very, very heavy financially.

The change to the CPP, so that injured workers cannot receive CPP - it is clawed back by the Commission - is one that has gone on too long and needs to change, I say to the minister. We are hoping - because I know there have been a number of submissions made during the recent hearings into the Workers' Compensation Review Committee. There have been a number of presentations made by injured workers and organizations who represent them, to have that change occur during this latest recommendation to the minister. I understand that it is scheduled to be in the minister's hands any day at all, but because of extending the number of areas that were held, I think there has been a slight delay in when government will actually receive that report. But, when they do, Mr. Chairman, it is important, I think, that one of the first things they acknowledge is that there is a huge injustice done to working people in this Province by allowing CPP to be clawed back.

I would just like to remind the minister and his government, that when they were in Opposition that was a position they advocated, that the CPP should not be clawed back from Workers' Compensation benefits. Already, workers pay a price because the amount of Workers' Compensation they can receive is capped. It is set at a certain level. It cannot go any higher. So in addition to losing money, losing benefits, you also have your benefit from the Compensation Commission clawed back as a result of being in receipt of Canada Pension.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of injustices in this Province that need attention and need to be corrected. I am happy to say that some of them have taken place and I look forward to others being addressed as well in a positive way that will help the people of this Province in a way that only legislation, or the government in power of the day, can make changes that will improve the lot of ordinary workers.

Mr. Chairman, going back to the topic of this debate and the pay equity. It is not uncommon, even today, that the opportunities that are denied women workers in the workplace are still ones that the male workforce take for granted and have at their discretion to do. Right now, I am glad to say, that in the mining industry, once an industry that was dominated completely by males, today we have a lot of female participation, doing everything from truck driving to millwright to electricians. The whole gamut, Mr. Chairman. In our own organization we have a group that we call Women of Steel. It is the name of their organization. They are union members in the Steel Worker's Union, in the mining sector, who actively take place in the workplace, doing jobs that traditionally would have been done by all men.

Mr. Chairman, these are the changes that we need. These are the things that we need to occur because, let's face it, when we say the word woman or women in the workplace and being treated fairly, there is another way of saying it to, its our daughter, its our mother, its our sisters and its our relatives. So, it is not the word woman or women which sounds like it applies to somebody else. That term actually applies to our own children and to our own wives and mothers. That, I think, brings it home even closer. When we look at it from that light, Mr. Chairman, it is easy to see why they should be treated fairly and equal to the male workforce in this Province and in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take up all my time. I wanted to make those points and I will let somebody else take part in the debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today and I would like to say a few words as it relates to this bill. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about how women should support women in this Province.

First of all, I will say that on this bill for pay equity for women, it needed to be done. It should have been done an awfully long time ago. It should have been done as soon as it was realized that it happened in our Province, because we should never support and allow things like that to continue. I am pleased to say that, finally today, these women are going to be compensated.

Now, I guess there is a debate over whether the compensation is adequate or if it is not, or how it is going to be distributed, and who will receive monies and who will not and what sectors. Things like that will certainly evolve as time goes on. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I was very disappointed in was, not only the fact that women themselves had to take to the courts to get the monies that were owed them, but the fact that the court actually made a ruling, a ruling that was in favour of the women, in this particular case, but actually came out and said that they should not be compensated if the government cannot afford it. I have never in my life, Mr. Chairman, known of a case that went before the courts by a corporation, or by a company that was suing the government, where they were awarded in support of the corporation and then the government was told: If you do not have the money, you do not have to pay them. I do not know of a case. Maybe someone else here knows of a case.

Mr. Chairman, when I hear of situations like that, that only breathes another problem of contempt towards women in our society. I see the Minister of Justice looking at me very attentively and I appreciate that. When you have a court that can award in favour of corporations and ask the government to pay the remunerations, but reward in support of women and not do the same, I have a serious problem with that. I think there is still a huge problem in how these things are handled and how these things are ruled upon, within our Province and within our court systems today, that affect women.

Mr. Chairman, I sat here today and I listened to the debate. I listened to my female colleagues on the other side of the House stand up here today and talk about how much they support women. Mr. Chairman, I am one woman who can give you several cases in which women on that side of the House did not support me in the work that I was doing.

Mr. Chairman, I remember not too long ago, after two years of working with the Canadian Women's Parliament in Canada - I was one of the founding members of the Canadian Women's Parliament and I was so proud to come to the women of my own Assembly, to gather them together and to elect their first committee. It was chaired by the Speaker and by a Clerk of the Council. We met at a hotel downtown. We invited the Leader of the NDP to come. Do you know what happened that evening, Mr. Chairman? We did not form a Canadian Women's Parliament that was inclusive of women in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador, simply because the women on the government's side of the House allowed partisan politics to interfere with the democratic right of women in this country. Do not stand in this Legislature today and give me the full bag of books on partisanship and supporting woman and the do-gooders of women in society, because, Mr. Chairman, if it does not apply right across the board it holds no weight with me.

Do you know what was even more disappointing for me that evening, Mr. Chairman, with my fellow parliamentarians sitting at the Hotel Newfoundland, at the Fairmont, electing our first Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Parliament? It was that the Minister for the Status of Women for the Province was at the table and could not see beyond partisan politics to allow a Liberal woman to participate in that forum. That was how disgusting it was, Mr. Chair; to the point that not only did we, ourselves, leave the meeting without anything being accomplished, but the Leader of the NDP was there as well, and I think he left soon after.

MS BURKE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a point of order, that when we met and held a vote that evening, it was a secret ballot vote and all we had were the results, so there is an assumption as to how everyone voted. Mr. Chair, it was not a show of hands, it was a secret ballot vote. The fact of the matter was, another woman got more votes than the member who is speaking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, (inaudible) with me. The minister can stand in her place today and say whatever she likes. The reality of what happened is that there are only ten or so of us in this House of Assembly and we wanted a committee of women parliamentarians who were representative of all the House. We only wanted to have one person, but partisan politics interfered with the rights of women in democracy in this country, and it happened on that side of the House of Assembly, and it happened with the Minister for the Status of Women sitting at the table, I say to my fellow colleagues here today. So, do not stand and give me the patronizing speeches on women in politics.

That is not the only example, Mr. Chairman. That is not the only example. Let me give you another one. Ten years I have been elected, the first woman ever elected to politics in Labrador to ever come and sit in this House of Assembly, and the Minister for the Status of Women organized the forums on women in politics. She organized two in Labrador on women in politics. Now, not only was I a municipal councillor and a mayor for five years, but I have been a provincial politician for ten years, and I am the only woman from Labrador to ever have the pleasure to sit in this hon. House, and the Minister for the Status of Women, in organizing two forums on women in politics in Labrador, did not see fit to invite me. Now, why do you think that was, Mr. Chairman? Why do you think that was? I challenge her to find another woman in Labrador who can live up to my political record, and she will not. Mr. Chairman, why was I not invited? The Women's Centre in Labrador West called up to the Women's Policy Office: My, we cannot have this forum without inviting Yvonne Jones, the only woman elected in Labrador to politics. What was she told? She is not getting an invitation. That is what she was told. The Status of Women's Centre in Labrador West called up and wanted to know. So don't tell me about standing up for women on that side of the House, because you are standing up for women only when those women have the same partisan politics as you do. Mr. Chairman, and I take great offence to that.

Think about that and then get up and tell me how committed you are to women in this Province, because, Mr. Chairman, I have seen a whole different side of it. If you are committed to what you do and if you believe in the issues that you are promoting and the people that you are representing, politics does not become a part of it. We might get elected by certain people, but when we come here we are here to serve all of the people. We are here to serve all of the people of the Province. If you think that you are going to make great strides and great gains in this Province by excluding people, well I have news for you, it is not going to happen.

I went to the Aboriginal Women's Conference, indeed I did. I walked in, I participated, I heard the issues, and I sat with the women. Mr. Chairman, it did not bother me that I was not invited because I am going to do that anyway. The reality is that I was not invited because of where I sit in this House of Assembly. In my mind, that is disgusting, because that is not representing all women. I say to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, she should be ashamed of herself. She should be absolutely ashamed of herself, to stand up in this House and talk about the way she supports women when her actions and her deeds are very different, I say to my hon. colleagues, very different.

Now, let's talk about other issues that are facing women in our Province. We had a lot of women here today. We had a lot of women in this gallery today from down in Trinity Bay, I think it was.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse Clair that her time for speaking has lapsed.

MS JONES: I will just clue up for a minute, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MS JONES: I was just going to mention about the women who were here today. I know that we are running out of time. I am going to conclude my comments. I know I will have another opportunity to get up before the clock runs out, so I thank you for your time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say a few words in this debate, where we are being asked to authorize additional expenditures to cover the cost of settling or - not settling - the technical terminology is to make available ex gratia payment in relation to pay equity.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot this afternoon about a lot of things, and I do not want to get involved in the most recent debate, although I was there, and I agree with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that was not a very positive experience, in my view, of the representation of women in parliamentary organizations. It was a situation where there was a history and a pattern and a tradition in inter-parliamentary organizations of non-partisanship, and I think that tradition was violated by the manner in which the vote was taken, and the results of the vote, which was controlled by the majority of women who happened to be sitting on the other side of the House. I think it was a failure to acknowledge the traditions, the long-standing traditions, not only amongst women in inter-parliamentary organizations but all inter-parliamentary organizations where the tradition was not to be partisan, but to be inclusive as possible. It was very unfortunate that this event happened, and I cannot imagine a reasonable explanation for it, frankly, Mr. Chairman, other than misguided partisanship that I saw displayed that night.

What I want to talk about in general, Mr. Chairman, is the notion of pay equity and the dispute that came about as a result of an agreement that was made. I think it has to be acknowledged

that it was a former Premier, Premier Peckford, who actually sat down with the unions of the day, with NAPE and CUPE, and signed an agreement in which he said, and his government said, we acknowledge that there has been systemic discrimination against women in the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to fix it on a go-forward basis.

The go-forward basis was July 1, 1988. So, as of July 1 - I think the agreement was signed in April or May or June, but - as of July 1, 1988, we are going to provide redress under a collective agreement for the systemic discrimination against women in the public sector.

Now, systemic discrimination, for those of you who haven't heard the term, is where you are not discriminating against a particular individual because she is a woman but, in a systematic way, you are discriminating against women because they are women or because they hold positions that are normally occupied by women. So, some men are actually included in this pay equity issue because they might have been involved in female-dominated positions that they, themselves, were discriminated.

Let me give you an example: cleaners. A cleaner in a hospital, who carried a mop or used a machine that was a polisher, he was paid a certain wage rate. A woman who got down on her hands and knees and scrubbed the floor got a lesser wage rate because she did not have to carry this so-called heavy machine.

There were all sorts of discrimination in the public sector of our workforce, and they were systematic in nature. They had grown up over the years. They were the results of discriminatory attitudes, or the results of some misguided patriotism: Well, we have to pay the man more because, after all, he is the head of the family. Did anyone ever hear of that before? Did anyone ever hear it said that we have to pay the man more because he is the head of the family? Well, if you haven't heard that then you haven't been around very long, because that was a very common attitude that people had. It obviously ignored the fact that men and women should be equal, but it also ignored the fact that the head of many families in Newfoundland and Labrador are women and the women are equally responsible for raising the family and providing for the income and out there working, just like the women who were out in the lobby and here in the gallery today, who are the people - and I was out there speaking to them, Mr. Chairman. They said: We are here because we want work. They said: We worked through the cod moratorium, when the cod moratorium was on, and half of the population in the fishing industry was home collecting the TAGS money because they did not have fish. We got up in the morning and we worked, and we are here today because we want more work. We worked twelves months of a year. All we want is the fish to process. These were predominately women, Mr. Chairman, predominantly women, who want to work, who want to contribute to their families well-being, and just want the resources to do it.

What happened, Mr. Chairman? The part of the agreement that was signed by Brian Peckford in 1988 was that we will pay it as of July 1, but we cannot start paying it right away because we do not know how much to pay. We have to do a study. We have to determine what categories. We have to do a proper analysis, compare the job comparison studies. There was a whole process that they went through, and it took several years to do it. By the time they had it all figured out - some of the agreements were put in place, some of the categories were determined, they were signed off on, people started getting pay equity, they got their pay equity, they got their back pay, but when the new government came in under Clyde Wells, they, in 1991, got involved in something called the Public Sector Restraint Act.

We opposed it, Mr. Chairman. If memory serves, the hon. gentlemen opposite opposed it, too, those of you who were there. I think the Member for Kilbride was there. Maybe he was not. I am not sure if the Member for Kilbride was there at that time, but those who were there - the Member for Cape St. Francis was there, and there were others opposite who were there. We, on this side of the House, opposed that legislation. One of the reasons we opposed it was because it had the effect of removing the retroactive portion of the pay equity agreement. We believed it was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it was discriminatory against women, it was, in fact, taking away a resolution to discrimination. It was the most clear form of discrimination that you could have, and the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately agreed.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think, like many lawyers, maybe most lawyers in this House and in this Province, and perhaps in the country, were very surprised by the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Chief Justice of whom, of course, is a woman. It was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe, that found that there was discrimination by that legislation; that legislation discriminated.

Instead of saying yes, there was public sector restraint; yes, there was a serious financial circumstance; yes, legislation was justified to make changes to collective agreements - all of which was done - instead of saying yes, you can do that but you have to do so in a manner that does not discriminate against women, they said it was justifiable. I was shocked! I was shocked because all they had to say was: Well, if you are going to pass this kind of legislation, if it is pain you are spreading around, you have to spread the pain around a little more. You have to make sure that whoever is being detrimentally affected by this, they are being detrimentally affected in an equal manner. The Supreme Court of Canada, unfortunately, has a very regrettable precedent, Mr. Chairman, a very regrettable precedent. I hope it is not repeated. I hope it does not become a precedent for anything. It is my hope that one day the Supreme Court of Canada will revisit that type of decision and come down with something else.

That having happened, Mr. Chairman, the legal road was finished, the legal road was over. We had been urging the government prior to this, to settle the case before it went to court. I know NAPE was urging the government to settle it before it went to court. They did not do it, Mr. Chair, this government did not do it, the previous government and the hon. members opposite, some of whom were part of it, they did not redress this. They did not settle it along the way. They went to court and we challenged them going to court, Mr. Chair, when they challenged the decision. There was a decision made by David Alcock agreeing with the discrimination and ordering that it be fixed, and what did the government of the day do, the Liberal government of the day? They challenged the decision to the court, and then it went to the Court of Appeal. Then the union had to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Every step of the way there was an opportunity to settle that case, but the government of the day, which was the government sitting here, did not do that.

Hon. members opposite, your government, took it to the Supreme Court of Canada. Yes, you may have provided an ex gratia payment last week, or we are authorizing the money today -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I get another chance.

It went to the Supreme Court of Canada because this government made sure it went to the Supreme Court of Canada rather than settling it, and it is only now that we are trying to resolve this issue because it has to be resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to continue on with the debate on this bill, because it is an important bill and it certainly recognizes the contribution that women have made in our society in one way or another. It compensates them for wrongs that have been done in the past and it certainly allows them to be and to work on an equal footing with men for equal pay.

As I said earlier, when I started, it is unfortunate that it has taken this long. There has certainly been an accumulation of issues that has taken them to this point. It is still unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that they have had to settle for probably one-quarter of the amount of money that they were originally owed for this particular initiative.

Mr. Chair, I sat here today and I listened to what people were having to say about support for women in this Province. Every time I sit here and listen to the Minister for the Status of Women talk about how much she supports women in this Province, I almost cringe, and I almost cringe simply because I know of her actions towards me as one woman in this Parliament in the short time that she has occupied the portfolio.

I think I already indicated to hon. members - and I appreciate my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP, for verifying and supporting the story that I told about how we tried to form the Women's Parliament in Newfoundland and Labrador, because the Leader of the NDP was there that evening. He was in the room that evening, and I think the hon. Chairman, who sits in the Chair today, was in the room that evening as well and knows full well what transpired; the partisanship that was displayed on behalf of the women on the government side of the House towards us, as three fellow-women politicians in this Province. I could not believe that display of arrogance and partisanship, and then to watch the same minister go out around the Province and hold public sessions to encourage women in politics.

Mr. Chair, what an irony that was! If there was ever such a thing as having a hypocritical situation without calling the minister a hypocrite, I am trying to say that this was probably the most borderline experience that you could ever watch unfold, one in which the fellow parliamentarians who sit in the House of Assembly she cannot have as part of a committee on democracy and women in Parliament, but she can go out around the Province and promote it. I say, Mr. Chair, it is all for show, that is what it is; it is all for show.

Am I disappointed in this minister? Absolutely disappointed, Mr. Chair, for a number of reasons. One, as I said, when she held the workshops in Labrador on Women in Politics and did not invite me, the only woman to ever serve in Parliament from Labrador; and the Aboriginal Women's Conference when I was not invited. Mr. Chairman, it was typical, because I went to the twenty-fifth anniversary for the Status of Women Council to which the minister was invited. At the time, Joyce Hancock, who was the president of the Status of Women Council was having a dispute, differences of opinion I will say, with the Premier of the Province, our current Premier. They were having differences of opinion on certain issues. That night at the dinner before Joyce Hancock, who was the guest speaker for the dinner, she got up to speak I watched the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women leave the room and leave the dinner without even listening to the president who was the guest speaker; and in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, left the Lieutenant Governor's wife sitting at the table by herself. I thought it was the worst display of arrogance I have even seen in my entire life and the worst display of disrespect I have ever seen in my entire life. This is the same person that I have to listen to every day get up in the House and talk about the support for women in this Province. Well I am going to guarantee you, it is words and words alone. I tell you, it is only preached -

MS BURKE: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, on a point of order.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would like to make a point of order about my attendance at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women. I was there for over two hours. I had other commitments that night. In addition to that, I am certainly flattered that the hon. member was keeping an eye on me all evening.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I talked about the minister being arrogant, but I never knew she was as arrogant as that. This is no joking matter. I sat in that room that night with, I think, over 300 women in attendance, and right before the President for the Status of Women, who was at the time having a disagreement with the Premier and a disagreement with the minister and the government on issues, before she spoke the minister got up and walked out of the room and did not come back. She offered no explanation, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, as to why she was leaving, or where she was going, or what she was doing. She needn't be over there flattering herself, because she thinks everybody in the room was watching her. When you have the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women sitting at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Status of Women's Council and they do not even stop to listen to the president, who is the guest speaker, make her speech, it becomes quite obvious, I say to the minister. So, don't go flattering yourself over there.

Mr. Chairman, this is the typical attitude that we have seen from this minister since the day that she walked in the office. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, because I have been here for ten years. I have been the critic for the Minister of Health, who is now the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, and I have never been treated with disrespect by that hon. gentleman. There are a good many ministers in that Cabinet that I have never been treated with disrespect from, but quite the opposite, Mr. Chairman, who believes in a democracy that is all inclusive, that includes all parliamentarians, but, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, the Minister for the Status of Women, she is in a book in a chapter all of her own that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: She is not on the same page as most of her colleagues, I can tell you. For her, when it comes to supporting women, it depends on what stripe you are; what political stripe you are.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a point of order.

MR. DENINE: I sat here to listen to the rhetoric that the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is getting on with. I have been in the company of the hon. Minister of Education many, many times, in many, many meetings where women are present, and at no time was there any disrespect. The minister here is more than respected in the community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order, but let me tell you, the hon. gentleman who just stood is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Status of Women and Education. I will let you know that he is defending his minister today, and he can go right ahead. He can stand up for the next ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, whatever time we are here today, but I say to the hon. minister, what I say is fact and what I say is as I find it. You can stand on as many point of orders here today as you want to, but it is not going to change anything that I have to say or how many times that I am prepared to say it.

Mr. Chairman, let's talk about representing women, all women in this Province. Let's talk about the women who were in the gallery today, the fish plant workers in our Province. If they look at the statistics they will see that the majority of people who work in the processing sector of the fishery in this Province are women. They are women today who are going through an economic crisis in their communities. They are the people who are losing their jobs today. They are the people who are losing their husbands to jobs in Alberta; who are losing their sons and daughters from rural communities all over this Province. They are the same women, Mr. Chairman, the same women who were in the gallery today, but I have not heard one person, including the Minister for the Status of Women, make one comment - I have never heard her make one comment on the women who are affected in the fishery in this Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Never once, Mr. Chairman. Do you know something? My colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi may know this, there are about 8,000 of them; probably about 8,000 of them who are affected. Today, they were here in the House of Assembly and they came here begging for their jobs, fish for their plants, and what did we see from the government?

MR. REID: Shipping it out.

MS JONES: Shipping it out to China. No commitment. No commitment to these people. No commitment, Mr. Chairman, to these people. We, certainly, did not see the Minister for the Status of Women standing up to defend jobs for these women in these plants. Indeed, we did not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues would not mind me buying leave for a few minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

People watching this will know that this is a debate in which anyone can speak for ten minutes and if someone speaks in the meantime, you can speak again. So I guess the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and I are taking turns continuing our speeches, which are obviously running longer than ten minutes.

I wanted to continue where I left off talking about the pay equity circumstances. When this matter went to the Supreme Court of Canada, it had to be brought by the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employers and we urged this government not to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, not to take this case but to settle it beforehand. They did not do so, Mr. Chairman, they did not do so.

When they went to the Supreme Court of Canada, the decision was, as I stated, a very surprising and a very unfortunate decision - and, in my view, ultimately it will probably be overturned by another Supreme Court of Canada down the road - in which the Supreme Court of Canada said that the legislation was, in fact, discriminatory and agreed with what had been said by David Alcock - going back almost ten years - and said, yes, agreed that it was discriminatory but allowed the legislation rather than say that there should have been a method devised to pass legislation that conducted public sector restraint in a manner that did not discriminate against women. So, the situation was left, as it still is, where there was no legal remedy, but there was a political remedy, Mr. Chairman.

As my colleague from Labrador West has pointed out, our party has consistently reminded the government - whether it was this one or the previous government - that this is an issue which is fundamental to the kind of society that we want to have, where women are not only treated with dignity, Mr. Chairman, but respect and with equal rights, and that this issue was not going to go away.

The women of Newfoundland and Labrador, individual women, Mr. Chairman - first of all, it was just the organized groups, the women's councils, NAPE, CUPE, but then all of a sudden it changed. This was after the Supreme Court of Canada. If you listen to the Open Lines and you had your typical first-time caller calling in, the first-time callers were calling in from all over this Province and they were saying: I can't believe that the government will continue to allow this issue not to be resolved. That this pay equity for women in the public service is an issue of importance to them, even though they were not going to get it themselves; even though they were not in the public sector. It then became an issue for all women. Mr. Chairman, I think the government recognized that. They recognized it in making the decision that they did, to make what has been termed in law an ex gratia payment. All that means, Mr. Chairman, is a payment that is made without the law requiring it to be made. That is very simply what it says.

So, what happened, Mr. Chairman, was this government - and they deserve credit for it. They recognized the political need to give respect to the desire for women in this Province to be treated equally, regardless of what the law said. Now, that is something that I am very proud to see happen in this Province, that the women of Newfoundland and Labrador said: We don't care what the law says. We don't care what the highest court in the land says. We think women have been discriminated against and there ought to be redress. If the Supreme Court of Canada will not ensure that there is redress, we want to take political steps to ensure that there is redress, and the government listened.

I am glad to see that, Mr. Chairman. It is probably fitting that this government did recognize that because it was this government's predecessor, back in 1988, that signed the original agreement recognizing that there was discrimination in the public sector. But, you know, throughout this piece there were lots of elements of discrimination that went on by government. Government taking action that resulted in discrimination against women.

I remember, not this government, the previous government, when there was action taken by NAPE, again, to try and organize home-care workers, ninety-nine point whatever per cent women, many of whom had been laid off from Hoyles-Escasoni home and were now working for so-called private agencies, providing home-care services at about half the pay they were receiving three months before when they worked in Hoyles-Escasoni, and they went on strike.

Members opposite remember this, the Southern Shore home-care workers. I saw the then Minister Responsible for the Status for Women in this House defend a position that government took: Oh, we don't have anything to do with that. We are not the employer. We are not the employer.

It was the clear creation of a situation, a situation where women were being singled out, a workforce predominately, almost entirely, women who were being treated differently than other women in the public sector. Then legislation was passed. We opposed it, and members opposite opposed it. Legislation was then passed to declare that, regardless of the fact that the government was paying the entire amount of money, the same as they do for everybody in the Hoyles-Escasoni home or in the hospital or in other services, regardless of that fact, they were not the employer, and that the employer of the people providing the service was actually the person receiving the service, a fiction that could not withstand the test of the Human Rights Commission when a ruling was made that said the government was really the actual employer.

This is the kind of thing that has gone on in our time. We are not going back to ancient history now. We are talking about in our time, in the last ten years, that kind of action taken by government to avoid recognizing the need for women to have equal treatment. This is not a battle that one can say has been won, and it is not going to be won - I venture to suspect that it is not going to be won until we see a Legislature with an equal number of men and women. I don't think it will be won until then.

I read a very interesting article the other day. It was written by a man, Geoffrey Stevens, not one normally given to radical ideas and thoughts. The title of the article was: If half the House of Commons were women. What he said was: If half the House of Commons were women, the debates would be different. Governments would not be doing the things they were doing. They would not get away with the things that they did. He listed off a bunch, but I do not have the article so I can't give you the details.

Until we have Legislatures that are more representative of the women in our population, we are not going to have the kind of instinctive equality and equity that we need. It is not going to happen.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I recall presenting a resolution to this House about twelve years ago, now, when we were talking about electoral boundary changes, and there were going to be some changes made to the system. I proposed a motion for debate. It was private member's resolution suggesting a change to our electoral system so that we would have the same number of members sitting in this House. For example, w would still have forty-eight members but we would only have twenty-four districts. Each district would be represented by a man and a woman. Each person would have two votes. You could vote for one person from the women's list, one person from the man's list, and you would be guaranteed to have an equal number of men and women in the Legislature. We debated that, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it got some support. I believe there were five people who voted for it. I was the only New Democrat in the House at the time, so that was one of the votes. The other four actually came from the Tory caucus. The other four votes came from the Tory caucus. Not one person in the Liberal caucus of that day, of the thirty-five people who were there, not one person supported the resolution, including the three or four women who were there.

That may have been a radical idea, Mr. Chairman, radical in the sense that it changes things from the root, but I would venture to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are not going to really have true equality for women in our society until we have the kind of Legislatures that sort of system would produce. It is not going to happen, in my view, any other way, because the system continues to discriminate against women in ever so many ways. My colleague from Labrador West pointed out some of them. He talked about banks, the banking system, the glass ceiling. You see the women up front, but the higher up you get in the bank there are fewer and fewer women until you get to the boardroom. This is the kind of situation that exists in many parts of society.

Mr. Chairman, I suggested earlier that maybe this resolution might deserve an amendment. Instead of offering $24 million, we should move an amendment and make it $36 million or $48 million, something closer to the amount of money that was provided in the ex gratia payment. Mr. Chairman, if I thought that giving the authority to make such larger payment would actually result in the payment going to the women, I would move such a motion.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

If I had just thirty seconds to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you to hon. members for granting leave.

I just want to finish that point.

I had considered that this would be an appropriate time to make an amendment, so that instead of making $24 million available for this ex gratia payment we should make $36 million or $48 million, something closer to the true amount. This is because we did have a very big surplus. Before this $24 million came out, the surplus would have been $100 million, so the money was there to make a larger payment. If I though that, by increasing the amount available to the Treasury Board, it would actually go to the hands of NAPE and CUPE and the other unions, I would move such a motion, but this is only an authorization. This authorizes an ex gratia payment. There is no indication from government that they are prepared to give any larger payment, even if we gave them the authority to do so.

We have a little situation where a letter was received by the government. I have every reason to guess that the number in that letter was one that they could expect a positive answer to. If the number was higher, they could not expect a very positive answer to a higher number. It seems that this is the limit that the government is prepared to go. It is obviously not enough money, but it is a gesture that I think is recognized as government acknowledging that there is an obligation to redress the stain on the history of Newfoundland modern politics and ensure that some dignity is restored to the relationship between this government and the women of the Province, so I support it, Mr. Chairman.

Having said that, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chair, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile asked earlier, when he made his remarks, about what the $4 million that is referred to in this bill was for, over and above the $24 million that constitutes the ex gratia payment. The $4 million is for the settlement for a personal injury lawsuit.

In March of 1992, there was a tragic motor vehicle accident on the Trans-Canada Highway, near Holyrood. It involved a family driving in their car, and the accident was with a tractor trailer. The road had been closed prior to the accident, due to snowy conditions, and when it was reopened the highway workers failed to properly check the road conditions. The matter went to court, and the Court of Appeal ultimately held the government 40 per cent responsible and the driver of the car 60 per cent responsible. Tragically, Mr. Chair, the young fourteen-year-old passenger of the vehicle was left with a severe head injury and, as a result, will never work and requires full-time care, and much of the $4 million will relate to the cost of this future care and loss of future income.

The insurer for the driver has paid the limits of the insurance policy, which is $500,000, and the driver, who has since died, has no assets. Now, under our rules, governing liability, joint (inaudible) liability, government is therefore left with providing the necessary compensation. Government did pay $1 million, by way of partial compensation some years ago, to assist this young woman and the balance of the claim has now been settled. The accident was fourteen years ago. The total compensation will therefore be $5.5 million, the sum of which will also go the young lady's mother who has been caring for her. Since the young lady cannot manage her financial affairs, the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has been appointed for this purpose and the settlement will, in fact, require court approval.

I would therefore urge that this legislation now be passed so that the compensation be paid as the matter has been settled. The settlement was arranged by officials of the department dealing with the solicitors for the family.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the detailed information that has been provided by the Minister of Justice. As I said, when we started this debate this afternoon, I thought it was pretty straightforward questions that I had asked. Unfortunately, I did not get the same level of comfort, shall we say. The Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for the Status of Woman did not give the requested answers. I thought, again, straightforward questions to the pay equity questions but, notwithstanding that, we will certainly be and are supportive of this particular Bill 3 and will be voting in favour of it. It is a good move and, for that reason, it is a right and we will be honoured to support it for that reason, that it is correcting a wrong.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $28 million.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $28 million.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

Motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1, 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1, 2 and 3, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses to the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

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 3 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 3 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.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘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, th Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $28 million.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $28 million."

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of the resolution.

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

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

I move that Supplementary Supply bill, Bill 3, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. ( Bill 3)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. ( Bill 3).

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 3, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. ( Bill 3).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." ( Bill 3)

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 3, be now read a third and final time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. ( Bill 3).

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

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

I guess the business of the House being done for the week, I want to thank members for the debate and passionate opinions, I guess, on both sides this afternoon. It was interesting to be participating in that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, this bill is now passed, so I will move the adjournment of the House until Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do adjourn until Monday, April 10 at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The House now stands adjourned until Monday, April 10 at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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