May 15, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 20


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we have a number of visitors in our gallery, and I would like to welcome them individually and collectively.

We would like to welcome, first, sixty-two Grade 5 students from Larkhall Academy in the District of St. John's North. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Ralph Cann and Ms Kelly Burke, and by their student assistant Miss Kathy Philpot. Their chaperones are: Marilyn Hoyles, Tina Thomas, Danielle Murrin, Lois Barbour, Margaret Hann, Kelly Hart, Linda Clarke, and Marilyn Callahan.

Welcome, especially, to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, we have a very special visitor in the Speaker's gallery.

We extend a welcome to Warrant Officer Kristi Bourne from Squadron 589 of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets in Carbonear. She is accompanied by her parents, Alf and Debbie Bourne. Kristi is one of two cadets from Newfoundland and Labrador accepted to participate in the International Air Cadet Exchange. She will be spending part of her summer in the Netherlands.

Congratulations, Kristi, and we wish you a very interesting visit to the Netherlands over the summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We also have Ms Hilda Whelan and a group of her friends who are here in connection with the debate we anticipate this afternoon on Bill 22. A special welcome. This bill is of special importance to these particular citizens.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we would like to welcome, from the Town Council in Bishop's Falls, the following members: Mayor Jody Fancey, Deputy Mayor Josephine Budgell, Councillors Barry Saunders and Hubert Sutton, and Town Manager Toni Elliott.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; and, the hon. the Member of the District of Port de Grave.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 12, I attended the sixteenth Annual Municipal Awards Banquet for the Town of Paradise, along with my colleague for the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island. This event, Mr. Speaker, is held annually to recognize and thank residents who volunteer and contribute to the well-being of our community.

Mr. Speaker, during the evening, the following awards were presented: Kimberly Crocker was awarded Youth of the Year; Patsy Whalen was awarded Citizen of the Year; Derek Strickland was awarded Coach of the Year; Wes Welcher was named Male Athlete of the Year; Sarah Strickland was chosen Female Athlete of the Year; Joyce Hussey was named Volunteer of the Year; and the Kinsmen Club of Paradise was named Volunteer Group of the Year.

In addition to the seven winners, a number of individuals and groups received honourable mention and should also be commended for their contribution to their community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the award winners, the Town of Paradise for sponsoring the event, and all the volunteers who work diligently for the betterment of our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Warrant Officer Kristi Bourne, Squadron Commander of 589 Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Carbonear, who, along with her family, are present here today, as was previously announced by the Speaker.

Kristi, a seventeen-year-old Level 2 student at Carbonear Collegiate, is one of two cadets selected from Newfoundland and Labrador for the International Air Cadet Exchange. Sixty-one out of 23,000 cadets from across Canada were selected to receive a trip as an "Ambassador for Canada" to one of eleven host countries.

Mr. Speaker, the selection process was based on a number of prerequisites, including: weekly performances at local squadrons; good citizenship; previous summer training and camp reports; academic excellence in school; and, a personal interview in which the cadet is questioned on their knowledge of military issues and current affairs.

Kristi will be travelling to Ottawa for training, and then on to the Netherlands for three weeks in July. She is currently working on the Gold level of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which she hopes to have completed this summer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Kristi Bourne as an "Ambassador for Canada" for the International Air Cadet Exchange.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge the dedication of numerous individuals in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

The eighth annual Community Awards Banquet was held earlier this month, which I was honoured to attend. Some fifty nominations were submitted in twelve different categories, including: Builder of the Year, Athlete of the Year, and Volunteer of the Year. All of those individuals and groups were deserving of a win, and I wish to thank the winners and the nominees for their dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a special note with regard to the winner of the Citizen of the Year, Nanette Blake, who, for as long as I can remember, has given tirelessly of herself to the Happy Valley-Goose Bay Special Olympics Team. Members of the team have won numerous awards and achieved great things due to her commitment over the years. Two of the team members, Jodi Michelin and Brian Allingham have, this year, been named to the national team and will be travelling to Manitoba in July for competition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this hon. House today to join me in congratulating Nanette Blake on her win as Citizen of the Year; also, the coaches and volunteers of the team; and also the Special Olympics Team for their hard work, dedication, and training in competing with their peers in the provincial and national competitions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Ms Jackie Jenkins, a Grand Falls-Windsor lawyer who has been awarded Entrepreneur of the Year for Central Newfoundland by NLOWE, the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs.

Jackie was born in Grand Falls-Windsor, and completed an undergraduate degree at Memorial University. After completing her law degree at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Jackie returned to Grand Falls-Windsor in 1989, joined the practice of brothers Gerard and Michael Griffin. On February 24, 2003, she opened her own business, Jacqueline Jenkins Law Office in her home community, practicing family, real estate, corporate, civil and criminal law.

Mr. Speaker, Jackie says that one of the best parts about being a lawyer is the wonderful feeling she gets when she has helped resolve a substantial problem in someone's life and also the realization of her dream of being an entrepreneur. That same commitment to her work carries through with her involvement in many volunteer groups in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest in Sunday's Telegram the twenty questions asked to Ms Jenkins, and she credits her mother with being the greatest inspiration in her life. What a fitting tribute, and especially on Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, Jackie will now have a greater opportunity to work for the furthering of women's issues in this Province, as she was recently appointed to the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Ms Jackie Jenkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure that I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate two Level III students, Brenda Greene and Deanna Power, who exemplify motivation, self-discipline, leadership and the pursuit of excellence.

Throughout her academic career at St. Catherine's Academy in Salmonier, Brenda maintained an average of ninety-plus - an amazing feat, considering she completed her math and physics courses through distance education. She is the member of the 3A High School Basketball Champions and a provincial champion shooter in the Enright Memorial Cadet Corps. She is the daughter of proud parents, Donald and Magdelene Greene of St. Joseph's.

For her efforts, Brenda has recently been named the winner of the Dr. Leslie Harris Entrance Scholarship to Memorial University, a value of $25,000, which she plans to pursue a career in biochemistry.

On Friday of last week, at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto, Deanna Power of Laval High School, Placentia, and daughter of Tom and Anna Power of Dunville, was presented with this year's Toronto Dominion Canada Trust Scholarship for community leadership and academic excellence. One of only twenty recipients across Canada out of 3,500 applicants.

Deanna is a member of her school council, yearbook committee, RCMP Youth Advisory Committee and founded the first ever Red Cross 4-H Group in Canada. She is active in her church, a member of the CLB Regimental Band - she plays eight instruments, by the way - and is a youth representative on the Atlantic-wide anti-drug awareness campaign.

In 2003, she received the National Youth Service Award from the Canadian Red Cross. The scholarship is for $60,000. She will receive full tuition, $5,000 going towards living expenses per year, and an offer of summer employment for up to four years. She is pursuing a music degree from Memorial this fall.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in expressing our heartiest congratulations and sincere best wishes to Brenda Greene and Deanna Power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate April Yetman of Bryant's Cove who won a visual arts award on Saturday, May 13, 2006. She was one of five winners in the Visual Arts Division of the Arts & Letters competition, the E.J. Pratt Junior Division.

April is a Grade 8 student at St. Peter's Elementary in Upper Island Cove. Ninety-six paintings were entered in the competition and April's entry was a painting of her grandfather's horse.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all of the winners and organizers of this outstanding competition, and I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending sincere congratulations to April Yetman on winning this prestigious Visual Arts Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to talk about a very important division within the Public Service Secretariat - the Office of French Services, which exists through the Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador Agreement on French Language Services.

We are pleased to work with the federal Department of Canadian Heritage in this way to continue to increase government services in French to the Province's francophone community.

This division, while known to some throughout government for French language training, is becoming a vital instrument in enhancing government's ability to provide services in French through translation, linguistic support and liaison with the community. The role of this office, Mr. Speaker, is expanding every year.

Our government now has a policy requiring that all government translations are to be coordinated by the Office of French Services to ensure highest quality. Also, the Office of French Services now has a dedicated translator on site to reduce costs associated with out-sourcing and to ensure that urgent requests are dealt with promptly.

Thanks to this division, our government departments have more Web site content available in French to better serve our French speaking citizens.

The Office also is proud to boast on-going partnership with the Canada School of Public Services and the Eastern Health Authority to provide French language training to the employees of these organizations. We are the only Province in the country providing specialized French training to health care professionals.

As Minister Responsible for the Public Service Secretariat, I encourage everyone to visit the Office of French Services and browse their Web site to become more familiar with the varied services they can provide government departments. There will also be an opportunity to learn more at the information booth during Public Service Week in June.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Provincial Francophone Day on May 30. This year, to commemorate this important day, members of the francophone community and children of the French school will gather in the East Block lobby to celebrate the event and then proceed outside to witness the raising of the French-Newfoundland and Labrador flag. Much to our delight, this year members of the national Committee of Officials Responsible for the Canadian Francophonie will be in St. John's for meetings and will take part in the ceremony to mark this important day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After some prompting, we made sure that the minister had an opportunity to give his first minister's statement this year. When I opened the package and I thanked the minister for a copy, I thought: Well, the minister must be going to stand in his place today and announce funding for the paramedics like he said he would do in Opposition. I was going to stand here and say: Yes, I agree with that.

Seriously, this announcement today is one that I can agree with for sure. When I was President of Treasury Board, I used this Office of French Language Services on many occasions for translation of correspondence and it was always good to see our public servants being able to avail of that particular service. Many of them left work, moved around their lunch hours and their hours of work - we gave them flexibility when we were the government - to make sure they were able to take part in these classes because being proficient in French was a valuable asset for this Province as well. You know, this time of the year it was always interesting. We always wondered if we -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was always interesting this time of the year because you never did know if you were going to actually receive federal government funding until the federal government Budget was actually brought down, but it is a program that has been in effect for many years and a good one. This side of the House would like to join in congratulating the people in this Province who will be celebrating Francophone Day on May 30.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonjour!

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

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I would like to congratulate the department on continuing the expansion of French services in our Province.

I would like to say to the minister, that the inclusion of the French language in our public schools for people who are going through the Immersion programs - people have said it is better to be bilingual. It is probably more important than a university degree in getting a good paying job, particularly with the federal government. The emphasis should be on education and teaching people to become bilingual.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. R. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

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

A degree of important should be attached, a higher degree of importance than is presently attached, to the offering of French courses in our post-secondary and primary and secondary school systems, and the French Immersion program in our Province should be expanded to a lot more areas than it currently is. I know the one in Labrador West, as an example, had to campaign vigorously with the minister and with government to protect the program that has been in place there for many, many years. That is very important to the school and I don't think that should have to happen, Mr. Speaker. Rather than fighting to protect existing programs, this government should be offering an expansion of French education in our Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking questions on very important fisheries issues since this House opened in March, and yet we have received few, if any, answers to those questions. The issues were very important and remain important today, and the Premier admitted as much when he stated in the House on May 1 as to why he couldn't attend an oil conference in Houston, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said and I quote, "We have a very serious situation going on in the fishery in this Province and I thought the place I should be is right here in Newfoundland and Labrador."

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What has happened in the last two weeks that gave the Premier the comfort level that things have so much improved in the fisheries that he could take off for a conference in Rhode Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last, I guess, three weeks to a month I had committed to attending three major functions. One was the oil show in Houston, the other one was a New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Conference, and the other one today was a Trade Mission with the Atlantic Premiers in Miami, with the other Premiers on behalf of the Atlantic Provinces. I cancelled two of those. I decided it was important for the Province to be represented at the other conference, which was last week. At that conference, six states, New England States, were represented. Five provinces were represented, including Quebec.

On Monday, we had just announced the Lower Churchill project as proceeding forward. The New England States are an extremely important customer. They were very keen, very interested, in what we had to hear down there. There were also interested in the potential of our natural gas and our oil. Our leading economic initiative is ocean technology. That was the number one agenda item down there; we spoke to that. We spoke to U.S. trade relations.

I left on Wednesday. I worked on Friday. I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries. I spoke to some of my fellow Cabinet ministers. I spoke to the federal Minister of Fisheries. I spoke to staff on fisheries issues.

I worked on Thursday, I worked on Friday, and I worked on Saturday. I got home at 4:00 o'clock on Sunday morning. I went to bed for five hours. I went out for Mother's Day. I worked yesterday afternoon, last night, and I am back to work today. That is seven days a week. I can't do much more than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems that the Premier works a lot, but he has not done much on the FPI file. That is what I would say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, talks broke down between the union and FPI over what the union considered contract stripping. Mr. Speaker, we all remember when another union, the papermakers union in Stephenville, were in talks with Abitibi, the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources both said that they would not tolerate contract stripping by the company.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will you stand today and give FPI employees in this Province the same assurance that you gave to the people in Abitibi, that you will not allow FPI to gut their contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite, and all members of the House, know the extra effort that this government did in order to try and bring a resolution to the problems in Stephenville. The people of Stephenville acknowledge that. They are very much on side with what we are doing. We stepped up to the plate in the biggest kind of a way in order to ensure that particular mill would stay open.

Unfortunately, because of economic circumstances, what was going on in the industry internationally, but also because of that particular company, we were not able to accomplish what we set out to do; however, we did make a significant step forward. We did everything we could, we thought, that was responsible and balanced for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are doing exactly the same thing when it comes to FPI.

I just left a meeting in the last hour, before I came to the House, with the minister, with his deputy minister, with information from officials of the department. We are in constant contact with the federal government. We are advancing the Cooke Aquaculture file. We have the Department of Justice now looking at possible amendments to the FPI Act with regard to governance, in order to tighten up what the directors can do to make sure they are in compliance with the spirit and intent of the act. There is a collective bargaining process which is taking its course right now. The parties have asked for conciliation; we are accommodating their request.

We are doing absolutely everything we can, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we saw the results of the Premier's efforts in dealing with the Stephenville mill, even though he said it would never close under his watch. I just hope that his efforts in dealing with FPI are better than those that he had with Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Deputy Premier often give conflicting answers to same or similar questions. On May 4, when asked if he would consider buying FPI, the Premier responded by saying: It is not going to happen. It does not make good sense. It is not the right thing to do.

On May 10, just a week later, when asked a similar question, the Deputy Premier said: Have we categorically stated that we would not buy FPI if we have to? We have not. So, in terms of options, all options are open to us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he can tell us what the answer is today. Are you considering buying FPI?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not our preferred option. It is not something we want to do. It is not something that we consider the right thing to do. It has been suggested by members in the House. It has been suggested by the union. We do not feel that this government should be in the business of running FPI, so it certainly isn't under serious consideration.

I have stated in this House, the Minister of Fisheries has stated in this House, that all options are always open. We never close the door completely, but that is certainly not, under any circumstances, a preferred solution to this particular problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier: You are prepared to buy into the oil industry, you are prepared to do a Hydro contract by yourself, but when it comes to our most important industry you are prepared to do absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Deputy Premier say on many occasions in the past few months that government was prepared to amend the FPI Act. Over the weekend, the Deputy Premier stated in the media that legislative amendments could come forward as early as this week.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What are these amendments that your minister talks about all the time, and will these amendments be brought to this House before the end of this week?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has already indicated, only a few moments ago, that we are considering amendments to the FPI Act as it relates to governance, for example, and other amendments that we have given serious consideration to over the last several weeks. Whether they will be ready to bring before the House before the end of this week, I really do not know. That is another decision.

Certainly, the amendments that we have talked about publicly are in a form that could be brought before the House rather soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There seems to be a real pattern rising in this House between the Premier and the Deputy Premier concerning FPI. Now, we heard about amendments three months ago. Then when we question them: Oh, they may come forward. They may come forward. When are you going to do something for the people who depend on FPI for a living in this Province, or are you waiting until they all leave the Province and find jobs elsewhere?

My final question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Premier. The Premier stated he would not rule out buying fish quotas from FPI for the plant in Fortune. I say to the Premier, that if FPI has fish quotas that are beyond their needs to operate the plant in Marystown, then why are we buying those for Fortune? Why can't that fish be processed in Fortune?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has said from time to time, and in the public domain just recently, that FPI, or any other fish company for that matter out there that has quota, that is a public property resource, that they better operate under the principle of use it or lose it. Now, having admitted that and having said that, we, as a government, turned our attention to buying quota from National Sea a couple of years ago now, so that we could ensure a future for Arnold's Cove. We would -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. REID: Does FPI have fish that (inaudible)?

MR. RIDEOUT: We would, Mr. Speaker - we have said publicly. The Premier has said, I have said, we would consider, if a quota is available from any source - whether it is FPI, whether it is some other source. We would consider it good public policy, Mr. Speaker, to be in a position to acquire that quota for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we have spoken to members of the Newfoundland and Labrador delegation who attended the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston earlier this month. These individuals have indicated to us that there was, certainly, a chilly reception from the industry towards the Province's investment climate and visits to the Province's booth were apparently way down this year. We know this is having an impact on the local economy as well.

I ask the Premier: When will the industry have the regulatory and royalty certainty they require so that local businesspeople can, once again, have confidence in growing their business interests?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the Opposition House Leader to lay on the table where the chilly reception was, who they got it from, because we would be interested to assure any member who received a chilly reception. As a follow-up, we would like to be able to do that. So, I ask the hon. member, if he has substantive information that he would like to pass on for us to deal with, I certainly would.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, my own information is this, we had the largest delegation from Newfoundland and Labrador ever to attend the oil and gas show in Houston. The largest delegation, led by a senior Minister of the Crown and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Our reports, and the reports that we received back, was that there was a significant amount of interest related to our industry with respect to gas development, with respect to oil development, with respect to supply and service. Were there questions related to the negotiations with Hebron? Absolutely! There were questions here, there were questions in Newfoundland and Labrador and there were questions in Houston, ones in which we would not shy away from.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter part of his question; our view has been the same as it was six months ago, as it is today. Once the energy plan is complete, which will be about four to six months from now, the certainty surrounding natural gas royalty, development of wind energy, energy policy generally, where that will go will be answered.

Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to stand by that commitment because of this reason. For the first time in our Province's history we will have a plan that speaks to the future in a coordinated, long-term and visionary sort of way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps if the minister and the Premier had taken the time to be in Houston, in fact, they would have felt the chill themselves and they would not have to be looking to us for the answers.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much over the past few weeks regarding the problems associated with the Hebron-Ben Nevis project and the development of our oil and gas industry. Officials with the oil companies have stated publicly that they are in a holding pattern until government solidifies the rules which govern the offshore, and they will not be moving forward with natural gas developments until a royalty regime is in place.

The Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources have stated that no energy projects, including such things as Anemos Energy, for example, will be approved until the energy plan is finalized. However, last week the Premier, during a polling period, announced his intentions for the Lower Churchill.

I ask the Premier: Why are you making announcements on the Lower Churchill that contain no concrete details, yet your Minister of Natural Resources is constantly saying we are not making any final decisions on anything until the energy plan is done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be dictated to by oil companies, gas companies or anybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Fish companies (inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The hon. leader of whatever he is leader now, interim leader, possible new leader, Opposition leader, is mouthing off over there. I mean, you went down there. You did not get a cool reception down in Houston because you were out on the golf course all the time. There is a lot of heat out there on the golf course. That is all you and your predecessors ever did when you were down there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I go to these conventions to work. That is what I do when I go to these conventions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, in answer to the question from the House Leader -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) Stephenville went down? South Carolina golfing. If you want to talk golfing, you know more about golfing, you own three courses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked. I ask the Premier now if he could complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In answer to the allegation from the Leader of the Opposition, I haven't golfed in South Carolina in about ten years, so your information is incorrect. Just so you know.

Mr. Speaker, they want to have their cake and eat it too. I mean, we have the quote which the House leader gave when he did his interview on CBC, and he said: If it going to be a weak deal, there should be no deal, and we are suggesting that the Premier should stick to his guns by all means. I think there is some posturing here by the oil companies. I think the Premiers should keep their feet to the fire. If they think I am going to go to Houston to kiss the backsides of oil companies, it is not going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just for the record, there is certainly nobody talking about me when they talk about golf. I don't know the first thing about it. That must be between the Premier and someone else over here, it is certainly not myself.

With respect to keeping their feet to the fire, no problem. We have been suggesting that, Premier. All we have been trying to do, as an Opposition, is find out some detail. We have gotten very little of that from you and your government in the last three weeks.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday in the House of Assembly, the Premier stated that he hopes to finance the Lower Churchill project through a guarantee from the federal government. He stated that the Prime Minister made an election commitment and he hoped the federal government would follow through on that commitment. After reviewing the statements of the Prime Minister, it appears his words are anything but a solid commitment to the Lower Churchill project.

I ask the Premier: Have you started any formal process with the federal government to solidify this financing guarantee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say we were prepared to do the Lower Churchill on the basis of a guarantee from the federal government. I said that we did have a commitment from the federal government, that we were prepared to provide a guarantee. What I have said quite clearly though is that, if others, like the Government of Ontario, the Government of Quebec, SNC Lavalin, Trans Canada, and other companies, other groups and other consortiums are prepared to do this project and they consider it to be feasible, why shouldn't Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do it? If everybody else finds it profitable, if everybody else finds it economically feasible, and we have looked it and we have studied it and we think it is feasible, why wouldn't we do it ourselves, why wouldn't we own it ourselves, why wouldn't we keep it ourselves?

With regard to the commitment of the Prime Minister: I wrote the Prime Minister during the last election as I wrote a previous Prime Minister during a previous election. I wrote all leaders and got commitments from them in various aspects of the election. This particular Prime Minister came back and said that he would seriously consider a guarantee. When he was in St. John's, at an interview at CBC, he said: I am quite prepared to do that. Now, that is a definitive commitment and we will hold that government to that commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday past, the MP for Labrador asked the Prime Minister a question in the House of Commons regarding the loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill project. It is very telling that the Prime Minister was in the House of Commons and our regional minister, Mr. Hearn, was in the House of Commons when that question was asked and neither rose to respond. In fact, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn responded on behalf of the federal government and he was very, extremely, vague on whether this loan guarantee will be forthcoming.

I ask the Premier: What is Plan B if the federal government refuses to provide the guarantee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in my discussions with him when he was here in the Province and when I returned to the mainland with him, indicated that he wanted to see the business plan for the Lower Churchill. That plan is being prepared. We want to make sure that, when we have the plan to put before the government, we have the very best possible plan that we can put forward, so we actually have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the minister's department working on that right now. It will not be a power point presentation, like the Member for Bellevue did when he used to drive up to Ottawa and look for $800 million or a billion dollars and come up with a power point and turn around with nothing.

In answer to that, we are in the process of preparing a business plan to present to the Prime Minister, which, in all fairness, he wants; and the federal minister, Minister Hearn, is clearly on the record that he very strongly supports the Lower Churchill and our involvement and our lead on the Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, commonly known as FERC, oversees and regulates the transmission of energy in North America. If transmission

capacity is available in Quebec under FERC rules, Quebec must allow our Province access to that transmission capacity for a feed.

My understanding is that this rule only applies if there is capacity available. With Quebec's recent announcement of their $25 billion energy plan, much of their available capacity is expected to be utilized.

I ask the Premier: If Quebec does not have existing capacity available for the Lower Churchill power as a result of their own developments, would this Province, and has it been contemplated that this Province would have to build and maintain new transmission lines? If so, has that cost been factored into the $6 billion to $9 billion figure that has been bandied about for the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the Opposition House Leader asked that question. It just confirms another reason exactly why I was in New England, exactly why I attended at Rhode Island. I did actually have consultations with officials who are dealing with FERC, a gentleman who has appeared before that body for a period of over twenty-five years, who we now may be consulting on behalf of the Province to look at these very issues.

Officials from Quebec were there at that particular conference, the Assistant Deputy Minister was there, along with the Premier, so those issues have been discussed and that is an ideal forum in which to discuss it because of the huge demand for energy of all sorts in New England.

With regard to the upgrading of transmission, absolutely, if there is not enough capability to carry what we are trying to deliver to either Ontario or to the United States, it will have to be upgraded.

As you are aware, our power will not come on stream until about 2015. Ontario needs a lot of juice right now. They are looking to buy some from Quebec at this particular point in time. If Quebec power is going to be brought into Ontario there will be upgrades necessary, so they will either be done to use our power, to use Quebec power as it presently is. If there are upgrades involved, and if there is additional cost involved, that would be part of the tariff that we would have to pay in order to wield our electricity into other markets, and that is an expense that has been factored in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question for the Premier: Over the past several years, environmental assessment studies have been undertaken and completed on the Lower Churchill project. On Monday past, government announced another study will be undertaken that would take up to three years to complete. As a matter of fact, I understand no final decision on the project is expected to take place until 2009.

I ask the Premier: What is the scope of this new environment assessment, and why is the information contained in the other studies not sufficient or cannot be used? Is there any particular reason we need a new one?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I think if the member would reflect upon the question, it is simply this: It has been about three-and-a-half to four years since the last attempt to develop the Lower Churchill did not go anywhere. Rightly so, it did not go anywhere. In 1997 and 1998, when some of these studies were completed, again, there is dated information. This is up-front information, part of the process that is required to move the project forward to project sanction, hopefully, by 2009. This is a part of the environmental assessment process, both provincially and federally, and a process that will adhere to the letter of the law and a body of regulations that are associated with it, 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.

My question is for the Minister of Finance.

When the minister was on this side of the House of Assembly, he met with ambulance operators and supported their cause for increased services. In his questions to the House at that time, he recognized that there was a lack of ambulance services being provided in the city and that it was having a serious impact upon people's health and, in some cases, jeopardizing their lives.

Today, I ask the minister who is now the Minister of Finance with surplus budgets: Are you prepared to address this serious problem and instate a service in this city that is comparable to other cities of its size across the country just as you advocated for three short years ago?

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Visitors in the gallery are welcome to our House. It is not my wish to ask you to leave; however, I ask you for your co-operation.

I would invite the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to give a response to the question put by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, over six years ago I raised questions similar to what the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has indicated. Since that time I have been informed, through the Department of Health, through the Regional Integrated Health Authority, concerns I raised on April 27, 2003, over three years after raising those concerns, that there were concerns with having ambulances in the evening, and there was an extra ambulance put on every day from -

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If there are further interruptions from the gallery -

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If there are further interruptions from the gallery, the Speaker has no choice but to ask the members who are here for this particular issue to leave.

The Chair recognizes, for a few concluding comments, the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was asked a question in the House, and I indicated that I would like an opportunity to finish it.

I was informed by the Department of Health, in consultation with the Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority, that, on April 27, 2003, there was an ambulance put on from four to twelve every day, and an extra twelve hours on Saturday and Sunday. I have not heard their issue raised since 2003. I have never raised it since that, while in Opposition.

At the time, I assumed that the action that was taken was adequate. I have not heard from anyone on it in the last three years. As to what is happening in the future, I am sure the Minister of Health is quite capable of answering questions on his department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the time, the minister based his argument on the fact that there was a lack of ambulance services and that there were six ambulances actually in the Health Care Corporation, of which only four of them were in use at any time serving a population of over 200,000 people.

Minister, today there are still only four ambulances in service on a daily basis and two on an evening basis. The circumstances have not changed.

Now, as the Minister of Finance, will you make a commitment to deal with this problem?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there was an increase in ambulatory service in 2003. Myself, prior to the Budget, I did not hear any representation from the paramedics on this particular issue. The Member for St. John's East, the former minister, did not hear any representation from the paramedics on this issue, and the former minister, the Member for Topsail, the former Minister of Health, did not hear any representation from the paramedics on this issue.

In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, we have put $400,000 that was not budgeted for in this year's Budget towards ambulatory services to increase dispatch services and to put a transfer service on during the days.

Mr. Speaker, we have agreed that during the next six months we would review the night services and address those services should they need to be addressed.

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 Premier.

In October of last year the Premier said, in relation to Abitibi Consolidated in Stephenville, and I quote: We have had enough of the antics of this company. We are not going to be part of a union bust out there. That is not what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of FPI seeking to take away vacation pay, overtime, bereavement leave, other types of leave, lower wages, why is it that the Premier was so adamant about the actions of a private company, of which the Province has no jurisdiction, and yet appears to be unwilling to take strong action against a company that is a creature of the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador over which we have total control?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. gentleman for that question. I think it is a fair question.

We certainly did not like the way that Abitibi were behaving and the manner in which they were treating the union and the employees out there. The union wanted to enter into a bargaining arrangement. The union were quite comfortable with what government had done in order to step up for the people in the Stephenville region and on their behalf.

With regard to FPI, we do not like what FPI are doing with their workers, quite frankly. That is why this government at its Cabinet meeting, and as recently as this weekend, has authorized the Department of Justice to look at the FPI Act, to look at possible amendments, and when those amendments are ready, those amendments will be brought before this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, last fall the Premier and his government considered expropriation and argued in favour of that. Today, an experienced international business advisor, Bruce Keating, talked about the need for restructuring of the company and suggested that the government should be much more aggressive in dealing with a company who appears to be run by its competitors.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier will recall that it was a PC Government in 1984 that created FPI out of restructuring. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and his government appear to be willing to be weak and ineffectual when it comes to FPI in the face of one of the most significant crises in rural Newfoundland since the cod moratorium?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the Province will accuse this government of being weak and ineffectual under any circumstances whatsoever. This is a very, very complex matter. The hon. gentleman opposite knows that. The members of the Liberal Party on the other side of the House all know that. The fishery is an extremely complicated industry. What we are doing is allowing some of the process to work out. You know, there are people now who, this very day, are making an application to the Board of Directors of FPI. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans knows that. A relative of hers is looking at, possibly, acquiring assets in the company. That is taking its course. The union are taking their course with respect to Marystown. We are allowing these things to move on. We are monitoring each and everyone of them very, very closely. As I said before, when it comes to governance, when it comes to conflict of interest, when it comes to the manner in which a couple of those individuals are running that company, we are extremely concerned about it and we are having a hard look at it and amendments will come before this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, there is time for a very short question.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, consumers in this Province are paying too much for gas and home heating fuel. We already know that Newfoundland Hydro have set the wheels in motion to ask for another increase, which will affect all of us burning electricity. The Minister of Finance has always maintained that the HST could not be adjusted unless all Atlantic Provinces agreed, yet Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have found a way to give a subsidy, equivalent to 8 per cent, to all households in their jurisdictions. This is the same government that left a $76 million cash surplus on the table. What are you going to do about consumers in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, time for a very brief response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This House is in recess. I ask the gallery to be cleared and when the House is ready, the House will resume.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 31)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 30)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I give notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, and I give further notice, according to the same Standing Order, Standing Order 11, that the House not close at 10:00 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today with a petition on behalf of the residents on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands concerning the Wild Cove dump site. Today I have a petition signed from the residents of Cox's Cove, and this is over 1,000 people now who have signed the petition since it was circulated.

I will not read the prayer of the petition because we are all well aware of it, but I will say now to the people on the North Shore that the two ministers, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Conversation, have agreed to meet with the concerned councils on May 26 in Corner Brook so that they can voice their concerns. I just hope that the two ministers will come with an open mind to listen to the concerns of the mayors, and I hope that the decision is not already completed.

I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to the Minister of Environment and Conservation, if you have a bit of time, a half hour or fifteen or twenty minutes, take a drive over to the dump site and you will see what the concerns of the residents are and why the concerns are being expressed.

I will just give you one example, Mr. Speaker. I always knew this, but someone asked me to just bring it up in the House. The dump site is over there for all the municipalities, the North Shore, the South Shore and the Bay of Islands. I am from Corner Brook, Curling which is a part of Corner Brook. I can take my truck, bring over any garbage, Monday to Saturday, and drop it off, no problem. Someone from Irish Town or Hughes Brook, the adjacent communities, have to pay twenty-five bucks to drop off a bag of garbage if it is not collected by the garbage collector. This is for all the municipalities outside the City of Corner Brook. It is unfair, if your town is paying a certain fee to the City of Corner Brook to collect your garbage, that I, as a person from the City of Corner Brook, can drop off garbage anytime I like free of charge.

I say to the two ministers, it is getting so bad now, when you drop off garbage at the dump site you have to show an ID of your address. That is how bad it is getting over there now. If people have to continue paying twenty-five bucks, where is the garbage going to be? It is going to be on the sides of the roads. It is going to be tossed over the banks somewhere. This is one of the concerns, that somehow it has to be a regional dump site.

I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: I know you said in you speech last week about the gulls flying around. I will just give you a little tidbit. Go over and visit the dump site but wear plastic, because if you walk on the dump site and you don't wear plastic around your shoulders, you will not be able to wear that suit from stuff falling from the gulls; I can assure you that. If you feel there are no gulls over there flying around, there are no gulls in the dump site area, go over, take a walk over.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will be going over.

MR. JOYCE: And I hope I am with you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. JOYCE: Just in closing, I look forward to meeting with the two ministers in Corner Brook. Thank you for agreeing to meet with the councils. Again, visit the dump site just so you can get a firsthand view.

If there is going to be a regional disposal site, as the minister says, this is what has to be explained to the residents of the North Shore. They are unaware of it. I can tell you, they are unaware of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank District.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of the District of Grand Bank. The same petition that I have been presenting now since, I guess, the House has been sitting this session; a petition that has been signed by hundreds of people who worked at the plant in Fortune but, as well, people who are now feeling the impacts of that plant being closed.

What they are asking in the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is that the government find a way to ensure that the quota traditionally processed at the fish plant in Fortune continue to be processed there. They really are feeling the impacts of having, I guess, borne the brunt of the callous actions of a company like Fishery Products International, when they chose to close the plant in Fortune, putting over 300 people out of work. I think if you do the multiplying factor, Mr. Speaker, you realize that we are talking about more than 300-some odd people. In fact, when you look at a small community like Fortune and the other communities that are being impacted by this decision, you are talking about eight communities all together. Not only the communities where people actually worked at the plant, but the fishermen who supply the product to the plant as well. Then you have to look at the businesses that relied on the money that was made by the employees who worked at that plant.

So, concerning the multiplier effect here, you have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people being impacted by a decision made by a company who has lost sight of their social responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A company that was created to not only make a profit, as we expect all companies to do, but in doing so, bear in mind that you are able to make that profit because of the people who work for you. What we are finding today is that hundreds of people are out of work because of FPI and we are calling on the government - and I am doing it on behalf of my constituents. In fact, on behalf of the entire Burin Peninsula, because do not forget, people who work there in Fortune shop in other parts of the Burin Peninsula, particularly in Marystown.

So I am calling on behalf of the government to acknowledge that there is an issue here, recognize that if we could keep those quotas in Fortune, to be processed in Fortune, then there would be employment opportunities for the people who traditionally processed that fish in Fortune. All it would take would be for this government to use the authority it has under the FPI Act - it is a piece of legislation - that they can come back into this House, amend however they see fit, to ensure the quota that is traditionally processed in a community, stays within that community, but that is not what is happening today.

What we are finding today is we have Harbour Breton closed, we have Fortune closed, and we have Marystown where we have seen a significant cut in the workforce there. What we are saying is that if FPI has surplus in terms of quota, then why wouldn't they just turn it over to Fortune or turn it over to Harbour Breton? Why is it that we have to have a discussion about whether or not we are going to buy quota? What the people here are asking is for the government and the company to recognize the historical attachment here to the fishery and to try and do everything possible, as a government, to make sure that those fish continue to be processed at those plants where they have been processed historically.

If you were to look in my district, in particular, you would see what is happening to people. They are having to leave on a daily basis. They are going to Alberta. They are going to Northern B.C. They are going to P.E.I. They are going to wherever there is employment opportunities available to them. The difficulty with that, of course, is that they are either having to leave their families or the entire family will be moving. That is what we are fearful of now come June, that the exodus we have seen to date will be that much greater -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I wonder if I could have leave to revert to Notices of Motion? There was one that had to be put down. I do not think that would be too much difficulty. I just want to have leave so -

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

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

I just want to give notice, and by leave, move that Mr. Charles Furey be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer under section 4.(1) of the Elections Act, 1991, effective May 1, 2006 and that Mr. Charles Furey be appointed as a Commissioner of Members' Interest under section 34.(2) of the House of Assembly Act, effective March 1, 2006.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the undersigned residents. The prayer of the petition simply goes:

WHEREAS the Department of Education, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is responsible for funding school districts in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Eastern School District is responsible for the administration and funding of schools in the Eastern District and, in particular, Harbour Grace Primary School at Harbour Grace; and

WHEREAS Harbour Grace Primary School at Harbour Grace is a Kindergarten to Grade 4 school which provides education to children from the Carbonear-Harbour Grace area; and

WHEREAS the Eastern School District is currently recommending closing Harbour Grace Primary School and transferring the young children to St. Francis School, a Grades 6 to 9 school;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to support the residents of Harbour Grace in their request to have the Harbour Grace Primary School in the Town of Harbour Grace remain open, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I received this petition over the weekend, and it is signed by quite a large number of residents of the town. They have asked me to offer my disappointment and their disappointment at the decision of the Eastern School District to close yet another school in that particular town. The closing date is scheduled to be 2010. The school slated for closure, Harbour Grace Primary, is one of the newest schools in the district. It was built in 1989.

Mr. Speaker, we all support maintaining high standards in our educational system. I would be the first to applaud the construction of a new school if it were believed to be needed in the area.

I think there has to be an assessment done of the schooling needs and the school buildings in that particular area.

I received a number of letters from the mayor and from other concerned citizens. One of the things that galled the people most of all was that they were only allowed a ten-minute stopwatch presentation to a minority group of elected trustees. When I say a minority, there were two trustees out of fifteen who were there. Now, when you only have two people representing a group of fifteen, how can anything constructive be accomplished? There was no time given. There were no allowances made for conversation afterwards and no input from any of the residents there; ten-minute presentations by the people of that community to two people of that board.

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Harbour Grace is a very historic town and they deserve better. I have worked with the town long enough to know that they are open to healthy, constructive dialogue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that after today I will be back again on this issue. It is a very, very important issue, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The people out there, and the children in particular, deserve to have a full hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting today that the petitions we are hearing are really the voices of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and they are falling on deaf ears. Today, again, I am standing on behalf of the residents of Buchans and all the area connected to the Buchans Highway, which would include Millertown, Buchans Junction, Badger and Buchans.

It is also interesting, Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard Randy Simms talking about the Portnoy case of bureaucratic paralysis. I would say this is politicians' paralysis. When they hear the needs they just slough it off, because from what we are hearing, the need is great. The need is great in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and, particularly, in the Buchans area.

I had several letters and e-mails from people who work at the hospital, who are afraid to bring patients over the highway, afraid intravenous would slip from the patient's arm, afraid that they would not make the hospital in time.

Then you have two new industries that want to be able to bring heavy equipment over the highway, and that same heavy equipment will be bringing dollars for the provincial Treasury. Now, this is something that the Minister of Finance is overlooking. You have at least 250 permanent jobs being created in the Buchans-Millertown area, so this government has an obligation to put down a good highway and maintain it.

The highway is there; the basic structure is there. There has been nothing done with it in the past three years, but this government has an obligation and a responsibility to the people of that area who in turn spend money all over our Province.

They are trying to say that they are promoting economic development. They are willing to spend money over in Strawberry Hill Resort, the Terra Nova Lodge, trying to drum up something for the Rural Secretariat to announce in a booklet that she never even prepared this year, and I can fill her book. I can fill her book with good news announcements from the Buchans area, but they will not listen.

They have an obligation to spend some money on that highway so they can take pride in the money that they are going to collect for the public Treasury; yet, the Minister of Transportation and Works said he has no interest. He has no interest in the Buchans Highway, as he said here in this newspaper. He has never been over the highway and, furthermore, he is not going to spend or ask any of his cabinet colleagues to come up with any money. Yet, the Finance Minister stands in his place, takes $76 million, and plows it right back into the Treasury again. He has no need for that money. Here is a crying need on the Buchans Highway and this government are sitting on their rear ends today in sealskin chairs and saying that there is no need to pave the Buchans Highway! They need to re-examine their mandate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to give the House an indication, notice, that, pursuant to Standing Order 36 of our Standing Orders, which deals with Matters of Urgent Public Importance, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and Leader of the Opposition will be shortly seeking leave of the House pursuant to subsection 3. Subsection 1 requires that this motion be made, or leave be sought, following the ordinary routine, daily routine, of business being concluded and before the Orders of the Day are entered upon.

I am assuming that we are past that daily routine piece and this would be the appropriate place in which to give notice of that application or motion pursuant to thirty-six, and it will be the Member for Twillingate & Fogo who will be moving that pursuant to subsection 3, seeking leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, and he will, of course, be stating that matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I note that the hon. the Opposition House Leader forwarded to me, after the opening of the House today, a copy of the proposed motion. I thank him for that.

The Chair would hear commentary - one from each side of the House, if desirable - as to why this matter should be part of an emergency debate or why it should not. The Chair will listen to the commentary - hopefully, a very brief commentary - and then the Chair will recess the House and make a decision.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking leave under subsection 3 of Matters of Urgent Public Importance and I will asking for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance. It is concerning FPI, Mr. Speaker, and what is happening to the company.

We would like to be able to have a special meeting of the House of Assembly starting immediately, because we have been asking questions on FPI for the past three, four, five or six months and we have not been getting the appropriate answers from the members of the government.

It is an urgent need, Mr. Speaker, because, as we speak, there are many people in communities like Harbour Breton, Fortune, now in Marystown, in Triton, Bonavista, in Port au Choix and Port Union, who are trying to make up their minds as to whether or not they should remain in the Province in the hope that FPI stays afloat in some of these communities, while in others, like Marystown and Fortune, they just want to know whether or not they should move on, or if there is any hope of that plant, or those plants, ever being opened again.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the time has come, after all of the procrastination that we see from this government in dealing with it, the issue, when they talk about bringing legislation before the floor now for the last four months, and things that they are going to do with the company: they are going to charge them for this, that or the other thing; they are going to bring forward legislation - but in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, as we speak, it reminds me of the phrase: Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

In this particular case, I guess, it is the government that is fiddling while communities that have plants owned and operated by Fishery Products International are going down the tubes and people are being faced with complete devastation, upheaval in their own families and their lifestyles, and they are being forced to seek employment out of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the government, realizing the importance of FPI to these communities - because a number of the towns, like the Member for Bonavista South, his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, who represents Triton, is up there, and the member who represents Port au Choix. All of these members, I am sure, would like - and, on the Burin Peninsula, I am sure that the Minister of Tourism, who represents Marystown, would like to stand today and try to come to some conclusion or some decision as to what actions need to be taken by government.

We are willing to take whatever actions are necessary to amend the legislation to protect that company for the people for whom it was originally intended and for whom it was originally established, and they are the people who live in rural communities and work for Fishery Products International, so I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that all of those members opposite would like to rise and give consent to give leave so that we can carry on with this very much important debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I would just like to read the motion. It is a motion for an emergency debate on FPI and it reads:

WHEREAS several FPI plants are currently closed; and

WHEREAS other plants are in immediate danger of closing; and

WHEREAS thousands of people are currently in the process of deciding whether to leave the Province and are looking to government for action which would encourage them to stay;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to immediately bring forward amendments to the FPI Act which will enable government to force the company to adhere to the principles upon which that company was established.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the last what?, since the House has been open, the issue surrounding FPI, the decisions the company is taking, the consequences of those decisions, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the communities in which they are operating, have been debated thoroughly, or have been debated in Question Period each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, government is fully aware of the significance and the importance of what is occurring or not occurring with respect to FPI.

Now, what the statement calls for today is for us to begin an emergency debate this afternoon, which means - this is what the Opposition is asking for - we suspend the rest of the parliamentary day, so we do not do any business in terms of legislation that we have planned for today. That debate, then, if we agree to that, no legislation will be discussed today, and that debate can go on no longer than 6:00 o'clock tonight.

What the member has asked for, and I listened to him intently, is contained in the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED part of his motion. "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to immediately bring forward amendments to the FPI Act which will enable government to force the company to adhere to the principles on which the company was established. On Friday past, my colleague, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, talked about, publicly, that that is the direction we are headed in today.

Under direct questioning today, Mr. Speaker, by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to amendments to the FPI Act, and I think in response to questions directed by the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Premier alluded that the Department of Justice is working on that right now. With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, as asked by the Opposition, we won't be granting leave to suspend the Orders of the Day and suspend the legislative debate. The Premier has indicated we are moving in a direction and making some decisions very soon with respect to the FPI Act, and potential and possible legislative changes to that. Once that is complete and our assessment is complete, we will be bringing it forward at that time, Mr. Speaker. So, we won't be providing leave for the request today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a brief presentation by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the position of the Government House Leader, but I didn't understand it as a request for leave. Although I know the unanimous vote of the House can have an emergency debate, this, in fact, is a matter in the hands of the Speaker based on the principles and the discretion that lies in the Speaker's hands.

I will say, though, that Question Period is not debate, is not supposed to be debate, although obviously it is an opportunity to ask questions. If Question Period were an alternative to emergency debates in Houses of Assembly or Parliaments, there would never be any emergency resolutions. I think that particular argument shouldn't hold much weight.

We haven't had a full debate on FPI. We did have one last summer when amendments were being put forward. So, there hasn't been a debate on this. In the sense of emergency, Mr. Speaker, there has to be some pressing matter. I will put forth for your consideration some statements made this morning on CBC by Mr. Bruce Keating who is said to be an international business consultant who is working out of the United Kingdom. He is a Newfoundlander advising people like Chevron, Texaco and Ford Motor Company. He talked about this company as being on the verge of collapse. He talked about the need for the Province to act urgently and more aggressively to start to specify what changes may need to be made to the Act, initiating discussions with debt holders, et cetera. It is an issue of restructuring of the fishery. He also referring to a rising level of concern about control of the Board of Directors of FPI by competitors. These are matters that have been drawn to the urgent attention of you, Sir, as Speaker, to give rise to the need for an emergency debate at this time. It is not enough for the government to say, look, we are working on it, we are going to get to it, it is something that we have been thinking about and we are talking to lawyers about, and all of that. I think the nature of those changes again - he says here: It is time for the government to put forward the kind of ideas, and say just what they are prepared to do, to let us know and specify what changes the government are prepared to make.

In the context of that situation, the terrible situation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the need for this flagship company, FPI, created by an Act of the Legislature to act in the best interests of the people in rural Newfoundland and the demonstrable fact that they have not been doing that, all of these give rise to the urgency that is laid upon you, Sir, today, as reasons for an emergency debate on FPI.

Those are my comments in support of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a very brief presentation by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a word when I gave notice we were seeking leave, but I would like to have a comment, if I might now, regarding the propriety of the leave request.

I think it is fairly straightforward here. Under Standing Under 36, subsection 4, which is the point we are at right now, the member provides the Chair, the Speaker, with the written commentary as to what we would like to debate. The Chair, yourself, Mr. Speaker, decides two things at this point. You decide whether it is in order, i.e., I take that to be the grammatical form of what it is as a motion to this House. We understand that it is in order having cleared it with the Table Officers prior to giving it to Your Honour. The second issue is: of urgent public importance. That rests with the Chair. It is fine for us to stand here and say that it is important, urgent, and the Government House Leader to say he does not think it is urgent, but that decision rests with yourself. The Chair, no doubt, would take into consideration all of the surrounding circumstances of the issue to decide whether it is not urgent. We certainly know it is public. We certainly know it is important. It says, of urgent public importance. Those are the three operative words here. There is nobody in this House or in this Province who is going to say that debating FPI is not public. There is nobody going to say that it is not important. The only issue we have, I would submit, for the Chair to consider is, is it urgent.

One might argue that it is not urgent because we have been talking about it in Question Period, and some members have talked about it in the budgetary context, for the last two or three months. The bottom line is, a lot of things have happened in the last few days; a lot of things. Even the Premier has acknowledged, for example, that he, himself, while he was in Rhode Island on a conference, as recently as Friday past, this thing has reached urgent proportions. The Premier is on one conference out of the country and he is on the phone in constant contact, acknowledged by himself, acknowledged by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on the public airwaves this Friday past, that I am in constant contact with the Premier discussing this issue. I think that is where the boiling point was reached was on Friday. That is just from the Premier's perspective of giving the urgency to it, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but in addition to that we have had the union situation.

We have not had an opportunity to come back in this House and make such a request until today, the House not having been in session on Friday. We know what happened between the union and the company. Now if that does not give you some sense of urgency, when every living soul, other than management, who works with FPI, all of a sudden fear for their future, and given the comments of the union leadership, I do not know what else we can have to indicate urgency to government and to the public here. What are we supposed to do? Wait like we did in the Abitibi situation, let is drag out and drag out and drag out, and then all of a sudden when the issue is dead, the doors are locked and they are all gone back to Mainland, Canada, somebody says: Oh my God, it was urgent after all, but we did not deal with it.

As far as having been discussed on previous occasions in this House, I agree with the Leader of the NDP. It has been raised in Question Period. Dozens and dozens of questions from the Leader of the Opposition here have been asked of this government, but the fact that he has asked the questions does not deal with the issue, because we have gotten very little answers. The government has been all over the place on this issue and not been focused. In fact, there was a private member's motion, I do believe, in this sitting about FPI and asking this government for an inquiry, and they said no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member if he could conclude his presentation. I have heard the presentation and I am reminded of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is anxious to hear the presentations, however we have to be very careful - the rules are laid out in Marleau and Monpetit - that we do not engage in debate. Several times we have been very close to that and I would ask the member if he would keep that in mind in concluding his presentation.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your informing me of that. There is no intention to debate here. The intention here, Your Honour, is strictly to inform the Chair of the types of circumstances that get taken into consideration to determine if the issue of urgency has been established. I submit that it has, and once that decision is made there is not a case of leave or no leave, I would submit. If you follow on, under subsection 4 under section 36 the procedure is laid out quite clearly as to where we go from there. If this Chair, Your Honour, decides that it is in order and that it is of urgent public importance, that ends it at the point of the Chair, we put it to a vote in this House and if twelve members in this House decide we should debate it, the debate should then be on.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank the hon. members for their presentations. They are helpful to the Chair. The Chair will recess the House and come back with a decision in about ten minutes. We will ring the bells appropriately.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are the Whips ready?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair thanks hon. members for their presentations.

The request for an emergency debate, or a debate on a matter of urgent public importance as per Standing Order 36, is governed by our parliamentary traditions, the practices of our House, and the practices in other Parliaments that follow the Westminster model. By reference, we also consult the authorities in this matter: May, Beauchesne, Marleau and Montpetit.

The main issue is the urgency of the debate, not the urgency of the matter itself. Beauchesne states it clearly on page 113, §390, "‘Urgency' within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means ‘urgency of debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest demands that discussion take place immediately."

In other words, urgency would imply that irreparable harm could occur if the matter was not dealt with immediately by the Legislature.

I also note that it has been very rare in our House for a request for debate on a matter of urgent public importance to be granted without leave of the House. Members will know that many such debates have occurred with the consent of the House; however, my research indicates the last occasion a Speaker in our House granted such a request was twenty-eight years ago, in 1978, and involved a matter where there was immediate potential for harm to the people of the Province.

The Chair is of the opinion that, while there may be some varying opinions on the urgency of the matter, the urgency of debate itself does not meet the criteria that would cause the Speaker to grant leave for an emergency debate in today's sitting.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Members opposite would know - at least this is the rule that I operated under, when I was in the Opposition - that governments open the House and Oppositions close them; so, when we leave this place, it is entirely up to how much debate we have. It is not a matter for government to say we are opening today and closing tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, unless we completely took every piece of legislation off the Order Paper.

I can say to members of the House, and the public, that we have business left to do, to discuss on a variety of matters through legislation, and we will do exactly that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the matter today, before I call Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, I do want to move a few motions so we can get other legislation on the Table.

Motion 2, that we move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," carried. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, Bill 29 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 want to move second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 22, introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 22)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, as many times as you rise in this House on many different occasions - this being some thirteen years in this Legislature - we speak on many important pieces of legislation. Of course, this is certainly an important piece of legislation. In my years here, I have to say that this can also be referred to today as a very special piece of legislation.

Before starting my remarks - you did it earlier today, and I would like to do it now again today - I would like to acknowledge Hilda Whelan, who is in our gallery today. Many women throughout this Province know her name very well, and I am sure many Members in the House of Assembly certainly do, dealing with Hilda over a long period of time.

Mr. Speaker, just a quick story. The first day that I entered my new office as Minister of Human Resources, Employment and Labour - and Hilda knows this story - the very first message on the top of a pile of messages was none other than Hilda Whelan, and her phone number, and: Please, could you call me back immediately?

Mr. Speaker, I did know the name because the fact of the matter is that I had spoken to - and, of course, we had discussions with - the former Minister of Human Resources, who is now the Minister of Education, on a number of occasions about the discussion, of course, about the debate on the issue, but also in talking about Hilda and how she has brought forward this particular issue for a long, long time.

It is sort of coincidental today that we are standing on Monday, the day after Mother's Day - Mr. Speaker, I am sure nobody in the House today would mind if I extended that Mother's Day to say Happy Mother's Day to many people throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and maybe it is a special day for Hilda and many of her friends today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, Hilda has been a spokesperson - you can call it official or unofficial - for a group of women in this Province who have been bringing forward this issue for a long, long time. After just returning her call, of course, and then Hilda coming in to speak with me just after that - that is some months ago now. When you sit down and talk to one of these ladies and get the real story I guess, the individual stories - because today in this House of Assembly we will certainly have discussion, I know, back and forth across the House, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to comments by all members of this House today. I guess you can never really stand here and tell the real story unless you knew all of the individual cases. Sixty-one women in this Province now have watched this debate and discussion unfold for a long time.

I am sure when the Minister of Education gets up to talk later today, Mr. Speaker, she will reiterate some of the points that she has heard throughout her tenure as she dealt with this particular issue. But, it is not until you sit down and deal with individuals, especially Hilda, I have to say, that you really get a perspective on the real story that has evolved here over a long period of time.

It is funny, too, today, Mr. Speaker, with the circumstances in the House - and we certainly were delayed slightly, because you never know what will happen in the Legislature. I told Hilda that before she came in today, but certainly, I guess after waiting for so long, that a few more minutes is not going to make too much difference. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, another part of me says, after such a long time: Get on with it. I assured Hilda today that I would not be doing any hour-and-a- half or hour speech or anything like that, because we have gone over this issue. It is very well-known to all members in this Legislature; very well-known to the sixty-one women across this Province who have been following this debate and this issue for a lifetime. As I said earlier, the individual stories would probably tell the truest and most honest story behind this particular piece of legislation.

The bill itself, Mr. Speaker, not a lot of words, but what it means is very important to, not just the sixty-one women affected directly, but I think a message to this entire Province, indeed, the entire country from that point of view. The explanatory note, I guess, if you read the explanatory note. "This bill would add a proposed subsection 65 (1.1) to Workplace Health, Safety and Compensations Act to allow payment of compensation benefits to surviving spouses who remarried before 1985. This would be retroactive to April 17, 1985."

I guess, Mr. Speaker, if I want to get into detail and go down through the history, we could talk about a lot of things here today. But, the fact of the matter is, Hilda and the rest of the women in this Province, some who live outside the Province now - I know, by the way, that a lot more would like to be here in the galleries today, because I talked to Hilda just a few minutes ago. Of course, a lot of them are watching today, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of them cannot travel; varying age groups, different reasons and so on. I understand one lady, eighty-three years old, said she would love to be here today but she did not want to travel from Central Newfoundland. I have a lady in my own district who has been talking to me for a number of years, way back, about this particular issue. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a special piece of legislation. It is special for, as I just said, not just the sixty-one women who are directly affected by this, but I think for our whole Province.

So, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act to provide retroactive benefits to sixty-one spouses of fatally injured workers who remarried prior to 1985 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equality provision, section 15 was enacted. The issue of paying retroactive workers compensation benefits to spouses of workers who died as a result of a work-related illness or accident who have since remarried has been the subject of debate for many, many years. The termination of spousal benefits upon remarriage places an extraordinary burden on widows and their families, especially in cases where the subsequent marriage has also ended due to death or divorce. Many of the women were very young and left to care for their children and, in many cases, Mr. Speaker, the children were only infants and, as I said earlier, the individual stories that can be told with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am introducing today ensures that women of fatally injured workers who remarried before 1985 and those who remarried after 1985 are treated consistently and fairly. That is where the debate happens, that in 2001, when the task force went ahead, the government of the day, at the time in 2002, did provide compensation benefits for spouses who married after 1985. What that did, it split it into two significant groups, and the group who married before 1985 believed that was unjust and was unfair, Mr. Speaker, we, as a government, believe the same thing.

I would like to thank my colleague, the former Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment who began this debate sometime ago with Hilda, and also other people throughout the Province. It has been still, in my mind, a long time coming, although it seems short, I guess, in the history of 1995 up to today. But, at the end of the day, I guess to wrap it all up, what we believe is the just and fairest thing to do is that these sixty-one women from Newfoundland and Labrador are fairly treated. That is what this is all about, and that is why, without going on with a longer history - and I know I will hear some comments today on both sides of the House - that it is a special day, and I am pleased to be a part of a government with the support of the Premier and my colleagues of the government, to support this and to bring forward this amendment.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is, indeed, a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this bill. I think the hon. minister said that he was in the House for thirteen years and I have been here for seventeen years and, to me, it is a very important piece of legislation that we are considering here. I also can relate to the minister in terms of how happy he is about this piece of legislation.

I know, in my short term as Minister of Labour, I corrected one of the inequalities that existed in terms of Canada Pension. One of the last things I did, as a minister, was to make sure that 340 individuals received something like $8 million because there was an injustice made on the Canada Pension and Workers' Compensation. So I think this is fantastic in terms of the people who are going to receive it. I received quite a number of calls on this in the last number of days and number of weeks in terms of some of the individuals who are about to receive the money from this particular settlement.

As a matter of fact, I received a call about three weeks ago from an individual, sadly to say, who was receiving treatment for cancer. I guess she was calling me and wondering when she was going to be able to receive this money and to clarify what was happening in terms of this particular piece of legislation. I said: Well, the procedure is that the government has to bring the legislation before the House. The legislation has to be passed. My understanding is that the cheques are available at Workers' Compensation to be paid immediately, just waiting for this bill to be passed in the House of Assembly.

I am recommending now that - normally the minister, the critic and the NDP speak in second reading and we go into committee - my recommendation right now, and I propose that we immediately pass this piece of legislation. Normally, a piece of legislation -

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not mean to interrupt the member, I just want to let him know that prior to the House today, myself and your House Leader had already agreed to that. So it will be passed immediately.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) individual, as a member in this House, I recommend that we go through all the stages of the bill and pass it immediately. Hopefully -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No. I am just talking about how seriously I think, as a member in this House of Assembly and as the critic for labour in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - they waited long enough. The House has been open for a month. We normally go through second reading, committee and third reading of the House, but precedents in this House has shown that we can pass a piece of legislation in five minutes. If everybody on this side of the House and on that side of the House agree with the legislation, then we can go ahead and pass it so that the people at Workers' Compensation have the cheques available and the woman I talked about, who is receiving cancer treatment, can get her cheque today and she can travel to St. John's, because she lives a great distance from St. John's. She needs the money right now to get back and forth to St. John's.

My recommendation is: Go ahead, pass this legislation immediately, and go through all of the stages. I want to congratulate the minister on passing this piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Justice is sometimes a long time coming, and sometimes it comes in stages and dribs and drabs. With all due respect to the previous speaker, who was so urgent and obvious, it is surprising that it has taken this long to get to this point.

I know that they are bringing into place the Charter of Rights back in 1983. Even at that time the postponement of the rights in favour of women was placed until April 17, 1985, two years later. Just because the legislation, the Charter of Rights, for example, which, as of April 17, 1985, actually forced governments to comply with the rights of equality for women, it does not mean that the rights of equality for women ought not to be recognized prior to that date.

I think this is something that the women who were affected by this have been fighting for, for many, many years. Justice does not actually arrive until someone is prepared to fight for it, to continue to fight for it, and have the determination shown by these women in keeping this issue in the forefront and not letting it die.

I want to congratulate them in success in their fight for justice. Let us remember what this is all about, Mr. Speaker. This is a situation where individuals who were survivors of a person in receipt of workers' compensation, or people who had died or were killed on the job, who received a widow's pension or allowance, that, upon them remarrying, regardless of the financial circumstances, presumably, of the person to whom they were marrying, they got cut off workers' comp. The assumption was that, if you were going to get married, well, the person you are marrying is obliged to support you and therefore your right, your independent right, to workers' compensation is going to be cut off as a survivor of person injured or killed on the job.

When you think about it right now, in the Twenty-First Century, we are all shocked by that, but that was government policy; and, not only government policy, it was implemented by the Workers' Compensation Commission for many, many years. It is only as the notion of rights and equality matures do we even get shocked by situations like that.

I know this has come in stages, because there was an amendment to 1993, another one in 1998, and now we have a third one undoing, at least for those who are still alive, the wrong that was done to their rights along the way.

I am very supportive of this legislation. I am grateful, for the sake of the women who carried on this fight, that they have been able to be successful in persuading this government - with a little bit of help, I guess, from the courts and other provinces in terms of the rightness of the cause - that this is the right thing to do. We certainly agree, in the New Democratic Party, it is the right thing to do. It is something that we supported for a long time.

I know my colleague from Labrador West will want to say a few words on this as well. I, too, support, as I did when suggested by the minister, that we do, if we can, with unanimous consent, have a speedy passage of this legislation today while those who have been carrying on this struggle - some, I think, are present in the gallery - and a special recognition, of course, to Hilda Whelan for leading that particular charge and for bringing to the attention of all of us this injustice that needed to be corrected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to be able to speak to this amendment today, because this has been an issue that I have been following and working on since I became the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency in February, 2004.

When I left that ministry in November of last year, to take on the Department of Education, of all of the issues that you leave behind, this was one I felt very close to. If the minister responsible had to look beyond the message from Hilda Whelan as his first message, he would have seen my message right behind it that we need to speak.

Mr. Speaker, being the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women really came to life when I began to look at this issue. As the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency in February, 2004, one of my first calls, as well, was from a woman named Hilda Whelan. I returned the call, and I think probably one of the first official meetings I had in that capacity as well was with Ms Whelan. She came in and she laid out the issues as to what she felt was an injustice to a group of widows in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Basically, as we have heard here in the House, years ago, prior to the Charter of Rights, many policies of government, and probably within society, within the community, often marginalized women and often set up a situation where women were treated in a manner that was less than fair, and they did not have the same rights to share equitably in many of the social programs.

Then, in 1985, we certainly had the Charter of Rights which meant that women could not be discriminated against, or people could not be discriminated against, because they were women or because of their marital status. In an ideal world on that day when the amendments came to the Charter of Rights, it is absolutely on that day that the people whose benefits as a widow were discontinued because they remarried. They should have been reinstated right on that day, and fortunately, Mr. Speaker, today we are able to do that. We are able to go back and retroactively make the payments back to April of 1985, when they should have been reinstated, when the Charter came into effect.

Mr. Speaker, the policies at that time certainly advocated the societal view that women were not the breadwinners and that they would be taken care of by their husbands. When a person was killed in a workplace accident, the surviving spouse, and in all these cases are widows, are women, they had to live on benefits that have been described to me at the time as being less than the rates of what we would consider Income Support today. When they remarried, and if that marriage only lasted a month - I talked to one widow, and that was the case - they did not get their benefits reinstated.

The unfortunate part about all this, Mr. Speaker, is that many of these women lived in extreme poverty, as women with children. In the case of Ms Whelan, she had two infants. She had one infant who was probably six weeks old, and another one who was less than two. Mr. Speaker, based on the income that they received because of the policies of that day, they lived in a barn, and she raised the children for a number of years living in a barn. That is all she could provide for her children.

Mr. Speaker, when amendments came to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act back in 2001, at that time there was a group of widows in Newfoundland and Labrador who had their benefits cut off. As a result of the legislation in 2001, the widows were divided into two groups: one who we acknowledged, as a Province, that they would get retroactive benefits, and the women who married prior to 1985 received no compensation.

Mr. Speaker, we are back today to right a wrong that happened to those women at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, these women lost their spouses through no fault of their own. They went to work one day and, because of a fatal accident, they were unable to return. We had policies of government that certainly did not take care of the women at that time.

As Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, when I started to deal with this particular issue and deal with Ms Whelan as either the official or unofficial spokesperson for this group, it became very apparent what the whole role was of being the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. It is how we advance the status of women in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. To be able to advocate and work on policy change that really make sure that women are able to share equally in the benefits of this Province is what it is all about, to be able to be attached to the Women's Policy Office, to be able to provide advice to departments, and to be able to provide a gender analysis to the policies or the legislation that we move forward. Mr. Speaker, this was truly an example, where women were not treated fairly under the legislation, where we have been able to go back and help the situation.

Mr. Speaker, there is one woman who lives in the District of St. George's-Stephenville East who I spoke to, Ms Theresa Snook. She came in to see me, and she was left with, I think it was, five small children when her husband was killed in a workplace accident. Based on being able to provide retroactive payments, she is able to attend the wedding of one of her children. She has experienced poverty and she has lived in poverty, but she is also a very intelligent women who has been able to have the capacity and the ability to move her life forward. Without this retroactive payment at this time, she would not even be able to attend the wedding of one of her children.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of issues in the past and these women have experienced poverty and they have done without, through no fault of their own. It was a result of government policy that kept women in marginalized roles in society, but as we move forward we are able to acknowledge that these women should never have been cut off from their benefits. As the charter came in 1985, at that time, at that day, they should have been reinstated, but it took a number of years. None of the widows were reinstated until 1993, then in 2001 the group of widows, unfortunately, were segregated into two groups.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are able to have this legislation before us today. I know that Hilda Whelan has been a real advocate for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador. She has probably never classified herself as a feminist or a person who is promoting the rights of women in Newfoundland and Labrador, but she truly exemplifies that whole feminist perspective, to be able to look at policies and realize how they discriminate against women. Not only is Hilda Whelan here today to hear this legislation and hear the debate on it, but, Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to acknowledge that Ms Whelan sits now on the Provincial Advisory Council of the Status of Women. She has certainly been a true advocate for women in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it has taken quite some time, since 2004 until today, for myself being personally involved in this case to be able to bring it to a resolution in the House of Assembly. As we started proceedings today and I thought there may be a delay, I just thought it further exemplified how much patience these women have had and how there have been set backs, waiting and delay, and making sure we look at all avenues before we are able to move ahead. These women have been extremely patient. They certainly have been able to put their case forward. They are a wonderful group of individuals. It is extremely unfortunate that in 2001 they were not included in the legislation, but, Mr. Speaker, they are included today and I am very pleased with that.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It gives me great pleasure to rise today and make a few comments on this particular bill before the House as well. I want also to compliment Hilda Whelan and the other sixty spouses of this Province. I want to say to them, that they have been a driving force behind what is happening here today, and they are indeed a classic example to the young people of this Province, and indeed to all people of this Province, that if you have a cause and you have a belief and you have the determination and fortitude to keep fighting for what you believe in, eventually you will succeed and you will get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: I think that message, Mr. Speaker, is driven home loud and clear today. It is through their determination over the last number of years that it is possible to be sitting in this House today and having this legislation passed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I spent many years in the labour movement through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, where this issue was certainly a focal point of discussion and a cause that we worked for. During my time as an executive member with the Steelworkers' Union in Labrador West, both as an executive member president and staff representative, we dealt with this issue on a number of occasions. I have had, I guess, situations occur through my involvement in the union where we had indeed members killed in the seventies. We had three killed in nine days. The spouses of the people who were killed, through the 1970s and the early 1980s, who later went on to remarry, were discriminated against. It was not only in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The result here today is a combination of things that happened across this country, and women were the driving force in making it possible in each and every province from British Columbia right to our Province here today. Some provinces have already dealt with this issue, as my colleague said, and they have since gained the benefit that they have been entitled to for over twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I will congratulate the government on - and I have said it before in this House many times - is that it is never too late to do the right thing. I think this is a classic example today of doing the right thing. Albeit, it may be twenty-one years later, but the right thing is finally done. Government has acknowledged that and I think they deserve to be complimented for it, because it is an important step for government to change this policy, and it is very important to the surviving spouses today, that they can get access to this money to allow them to live with more comfort as they go forward into the future.

It is a great day and I won't spend much more time on debate, because as the Government House Leader indicated, we will get through the entire proceeding on this today, and that is the way this should be done after the long wait.

I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the minister and to his government colleagues, that this injustice was a long time being corrected, and it is great to see it happen. Even today we have many injured workers in this Province who are having their families and still living in poverty. There is one other big injustice that needs to be corrected - and I am looking forward to the day when the minister can stand in this House and announce that one - and that is stopping the clawback of Canada Pension benefits to injured workers in this Province. That is forcing many of these injured workers and their families into poverty levels, and it is through an injury that they didn't bring on themselves. They deserve to have the benefits both of the Workers' Compensation and the Canada Pension, because that would still not balance out the workplace employment benefits they would have received had they not been injured. Now they are on a no-fault insurance system and they should be treated with the dignity they deserve. I look forward to the minister rectifying that situation in the near future.

I don't want to take away from what today is all about. Again, I just want to congratulate the people who kept this issue on the burner all through the many, many years. I am sure there were times when they felt like they were flogging a dead horse or whipping a post. It was like they were getting nobody. They kept it up and kept it up and kept it up, and finally somebody listened and introduced the legislation that will make it possible for them to achieve what they set out to achieve and that they were entitled to achieve so many long years ago. Congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to join and echo the sentiments of my colleague in the House of Assembly today in the passage of Bill 22. It is no doubt a bill that will provide for fairness and equality for a large group of people in this Province who should have never had to endure the incidents that they have in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and congratulate today the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, because I remember a few years in this House of Assembly listening to that member, when he was an MHA, raise this issue as well, on behalf of his constituents but also on behalf of others. I want to acknowledge his contribution to this particular issue and to congratulate him on bringing it forward today as the minister for that portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we tend to attach dollar values to fairness and equality in our society. We should not do that, and I think it was evidenced this year when we saw a Supreme Court ruling in compensation benefits for women that rested entirely upon a money issue and the affordability of governments. I know that in the past while there was a great willingness by other governments and other administrations to address this particular issue and efforts were made in that direction, it was always held back because of the financial ability to be able to pay out those sums of money or to justify paying it out. I realize that today the government is, no doubt, in a much better fiscal position than they have been for the last two decades and are certainly in a much better position to be able to pay out those benefits. I just want to point out that I do not think these issues should ever be linked to dollars and cents but rather when there are injustices in our system they need to be corrected and people need to be compensated and treated with fairness and with equality.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to recognize and commend the women, the sixty women and those, I am sure, were supported by many other family members and friends over the years as they continued with their lobby. I am sure it is a great indication of persistence when it comes to fighting for a cause that you believe in and having it addressed appropriately. These people, as my colleague for Labrador West has already said, have set a tremendous example in this Province of persistence and being able to move forward with an issue, even over extended periods of time. So, they need to be commended for the work they have done, for sticking together as a group and for advocating for rights and fairness, for not only themselves but for all people in society, in bringing forward issues like this and asking that they be corrected.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the bill that is being brought forward today. I am certainly not going to belabour the issue, as I know that we are hoping for a speedy passage through the Legislature, but other than to make these few comments and to say that I truly support that which is being presented by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate all the comments in the House here today. I think everybody hit on the same theme, that after waiting for so long we will not belabour the point any further.

There were some interesting points made, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Member for Labrador West, probably the quote of all quotes is: Never too late to do something right. I believe that, and I believe that since the minister brought it forward to me as the new minister coming into this department, I really appreciate the work done by my colleague before taking over this particular file. I knew how much passion she had for this particular issue. Of course, you add to the top of that, Hilda Whelan and the way she expressed her views each time we met and so on, Mr. Speaker, it had to be done. I am just sorry that it could not happen quicker. I am sorry that it could not happen years ago, to be quite frank, but it is about to be done in just the matter of a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. It is never too late, as the member said.

So, I am delighted for the support we got here today and delighted that we can move on with this. I want to thank Hilda and every single woman, sixty-one women in this Province, to finally see this come to an end. Hopefully, we can move on from here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 22)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider Bill 22.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that we begin Committee stage debate on Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

CHAIR: Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 22)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 22 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. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 22 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have reported that Bill 22 has passed without amendment. When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

Leave is granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think members opposite, and all members of the House, have certainly indicated in their remarks that this is the wishes of the House. So, by leave, as assumed, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I do now move third reading of Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 22 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now be read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I also want it noted that this piece of legislation, in particular, passed unanimously in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair did note that this piece of legislation did pass the House, in all stages, unanimously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to move a motion that confirms an officer of the House into a position in the House.

I have been in the Legislature since 1993, when I was first elected. Whether it be Auditor Generals or Chief Electoral Officers, the Child and Youth Advocate, Ombudsman, all of those members, obviously, while there is an appointment process that has happened, different processes since 1993, based on my experience, officers related to the functions of the House, who report to the House, must be ratified by a majority of members within the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, today I gave notice, I want to move: That Mr. Charles J. Furey be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer under Section 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991, effective May 1, 2006; and

That Mr. Charles J. Furey be appointed as the Commissioner of Members' Interests under Section 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act, effective May 1, 2006

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Furey joins us today; he sits in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon. I can say with absolute (inaudible), I guess, as a member of the House and Government House Leader, that it is a pleasure for me to move this motion today.

When I was first elected, Mr. Furey was a Minister of the Crown in a former Administration. I believe I was his critic on a couple of occasions, so it gives me some positive reflection with some amusement that today I am actually moving a motion forward to support him in the role, and I do so willingly, and I do so because I believe that he will do an excellent job on behalf of the people of the Province.

I can say, as a former critic of his, sitting in the Opposition, that I always discovered my calls to be returned, his door always to be open. Not that we always agreed on a point of view with respect from an Opposition point of view or a government point of view, but from a perspective of an elected member, a Minister of the Crown, and as somebody who was open and accessible to members of the House, I certainly could not speak any otherwise than to say that, that be the case.

With respect to the position as Chief Electoral Officer, he is somebody, I believe, as all members here are, somebody who understands the process of elections intimately. I think that, unto itself, will add significantly to the understanding of not only the process of an election generally but the way in which it happens and the potential for educating the public and, in particular, those younger voters who are emerging in terms of how the processes work.

This is a dual appointment as Chief Electoral Officer and also as the Commissioner for Members' Interests under section 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act. Mr. Furey has been through that process, as an elected member of the House, somebody who has left public life for some time, who has taken, I guess, the challenge put forward by the government to him on fulfilling a role in the public service that we look forward to him doing so.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that, effective immediately, Mr. Charles Furey be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer under section 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991, effective May 1, 2006, and that he be further appointed as the Commissioner of Members' Interests under section 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act, effective May 1, 2006.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we will move the motion and see if any debate will ensue.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion has been put forward.

Debate?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to the resolution this afternoon to appoint Mr. Charles Furey - Chuck, as we have known him for quite some time. I have known Mr. Furey for roughly twenty years, in some capacity, as a politician myself.

The resolution is to appoint Mr. Furey as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. The fact that I have known Mr. Furey for quite some time, and that he is in the gallery today, does not make what I am about to say easy, because I will not be voting on this resolution or in favour of this resolution today.

I will make my comments short and quick, but the first reason is that this position has never been occupied, since 1949 - it is my understanding that this position has never been occupied - by a previously elected MHA or Member of the House of Assembly and, as a result, this position has always been held by an individual who is a public servant in the Province.

In recent years, those public servants have gone on to become Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests after having served in the public service for a number of years and have risen themselves into the ranks of the public service to the level of deputy minister, which is the level at which this position is held in government.

That is one reason, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think we should be electing one of our own, having spent some time in the House of Assembly, into the position of Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' private Interests.

The other reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this appointment is because this appointment, for the most part, was done by the Premier, through his Cabinet, without going through any job search whatsoever. The position was never advertised, that I am aware of - never held interviews. There were no other candidates who were selected.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Never ceases to amaze me.

MR. REID: The Premier can heckle me all he wants, and talk about how I never cease to amaze him. Maybe he should listen sometimes and he would realize why I amaze him.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the position was not advertised. There weren't a bunch of candidates from whom the Premier could select. It was done by the Premier. He gave me a call that morning to inform me that the position had been filled, and that was the end of it.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that, when I think about the number of youth, well-educated, well-trained youth, who leave our Province on a daily and weekly and monthly basis to find employment elsewhere in this country, I just think that the position could be better filled by an individual in that circumstance rather than by an individual who currently has a pension from this House of Assembly.

As a result, today, for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will not be voting for this resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words with regard to this appointment.

First of all, I have said on previous occasions that there ought to be a stronger role for members of the House, or at least representatives of the parties represented in the House, in the appointment of officers of the House, whether they be, in this case, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Member's Interests, or the Child and Youth Advocate or other appointments, and that there should be some role prior to the appointment being made. As it stands, Mr. Speaker, for this role and others there is basically a courtesy call given, normally by the Premier, to the leadership in the House announcing the appointment.

I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have known Mr. Furey for in excess of forty years and I have no quarrel with his honour and integrity as an individual, nor with his judgement, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I can only repeat what I said when the appointment was announced. I said to the press that I did not really think it was appropriate to have a former Cabinet minister serve in this role. The last couple of individuals who served there have been former deputy ministers of government. It has always, in my mind, been a non-partisan, bureaucratic sort of appointment following the rules, sticking to the rules, and making judgements about ethics and other matters.

When I said at the time that it did not matter to me whether it was a former Liberal Cabinet minister or a Conservative Cabinet minister, I do not regard it as a political appointment in that sense. I have also spoken to, you could call him my friend as well, recently, and said that I did not quite know what I was going to do when the appointment came to the House, but that whatever I did it would not be personal to him, it would be a question of principle. In my view, if the appointment passes, I will certainly offer my cooperation and support to him in the role. I have to say here, that I would not vote in favour of this appointment, but in doing so I am obviously not impinging on his judgement or his integrity or his person in any way.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since we operate on this side of the House in an open and democratic caucus, I am pleased today to offer my commentary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not appreciate the heckling from the other side because they have no idea what I am going to say. Let them make their own decision after I say it.

What I am standing today to discuss is the issue at hand. It is whether or not people in this House of Assembly support Mr. Charles Furey being appointed as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. I do support him. I do support him! I do support Mr. Furey in that position. I guess it begs the question: What happens to former politicians once they leave active service within this House of Assembly? I would have to ask: Are the credentials in order for Mr. Furey? I do not think there is anybody here in this House who can deny that Mr. Furey does have the credentials for the job. He knows the operation of the House of Assembly, he understands the workings, and I believe that he will give an unbiased decision in every decision he makes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Are there any other suitable candidates for the job? I believe my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition has said: Yes, there are probably other suitable candidates out there. There are probably young people who are highly educated, highly intelligent and willing to serve. There are probably people already within our public service who could do the same job. Is this precedent setting? Yes, it is precedent setting. Is this the Premier's prerogative? Yes, it is the Premier's prerogative.

What I will say, in conclusion, is that, yes, I will support this motion, this resolution that has been brought forward, and if the motion is passed today I will congratulate Mr. Furey and wish him well in the new job.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the resolution.

I guess I am a bit ambivalent here, because certainly I do not question Mr. Furey's credentials, absolutely not. I think, given his experience in the House and the time that he has been an elected member that is not an issue for me at all. What is an issue for me, I guess, and this is what I am grappling with, is that it is precedent setting. I, too, know a lot of people in the public service who would aspire to positions like this. It is a choice position. It is a good position to be able to take advantage of. I know of many in the public service who have gone on to Deputy Minister positions, and this is equivalent to that.

This is what I am having difficulty with today, when it comes time to vote on this particular resolution, the fact that it is precedent setting. Never before, not since 1949 anyway, have we ever had a previously elected member take on a position like this as an Officer of the House. These two positions, I think, are two that are such that they warrant an individual here with the credentials of Mr. Furey. That is not the issue, but it is whether or not it is a path that we should go down at this point in time. Whether we should ever go down that path is a question for me.

It is a difficult one for me. I will gauge as I go along in terms of what others have to say, but at this point in time I am feeling that it is not something that should be done by this House of Assembly. Even though it is at the Premier's prerogative, it does get to be voted on by the members of the Legislature.

It is not that I question Mr. Furey's credentials, certainly not. Is it precedent setting? Yes, it is, and that is the dilemma that I am facing today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I find it highly insulting, the Premier shouting across that the Leader of the Opposition has the mind of a pea, because he is voting against something brought forth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: That was a compliment, Premier. That just shows -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I will just give you why I will be voting against this. Again, it is not against Chuck Furey's credentials. I will just give you a prime example. Everybody in this House knows my personal situation about the last election. Here is why. I know ministers over there who have already said they knew nothing about this appointment, the Premier did it himself. I know the ministers. I will name them if you want me to. I can name them, but I will not. That is what they said.

Here is what happened. The Premier is appointing Chuck Furey -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: When the court case was going on about me personally, Mike Monaghan, your personal friend, who is my brother's really good friend - that was about thirty year with the City of Corner Brook - stood up inside the courthouse, shook my hand and said, Eddie, this is not me, the Premier asked me to do this. That was Mike Monaghan, about overturning the election. He shook my hand personally and said, Eddie, this is not me, this is the Premier. All of a sudden - it is nothing against Chuck Furey - I have to vote for someone now who may or may not be on the whim of the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is pretty serious now, Eddie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Listen, you were not there, boy. You were not there when Mike Monaghan was up in the hockey stadium telling people. You were not there. You do not know. You do not know what I went through with it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is there going to be a connection to this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: There are a lot of connections.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, what is it?

MR. JOYCE: I just made the connection. What happens next election if the Premier decides, oh, we want to take him on again? Any member in this House is left out alone again, have to defend the poll clerks and the returning officers. It is the same thing. There should be somebody there who is non-biased -

MR. E. BYRNE: Was Wayne Green non-biased?

MR. JOYCE: I am not saying Wayne Green. Are you going to listen to the comments? You can speak to it if you want to. You can speak to it. I just know what I went through when Mike Monaghan shook my hand and said: The Premier asked me. Here is the Premier appointing somebody that the Premier got it up or down, yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this. It was never done before in Newfoundland and Labrador history. It is unprecedented to have it done, that will be coming up through this here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Having put in a person who never went up through the ranks as a deputy minister level, once again it is unprecedented in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a path that we should not go down. It is a path that I, personally, feel, if this House is going to do it, it should be done by the whole House, not by the appointment of the Premier. As several ministers said, they knew nothing about it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on this resolution concerning the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Private Members' Interests. I say right off the top, I will be voting in favour of the resolution.

There is a process here. We have had nominations come forward and resolutions come forward in this House now for the past number of years concerning the position of the Youth and Child Advocate and so on, and that is the vetting process, as far as I am concerned. If anyone has an objection to the name put forward, that is the whole purpose of bringing it here to the House. It is the Premier's prerogative to nominate a person of his and the Cabinet's choice. This is where anybody gets the right to say whatever they want to say. God bless democracy. Everybody can speak for themselves here and say what they actually think. I do not think anybody should have anything held against them because they speak their mind.

We are here now as part of the vetting process. I served in Cabinet with Mr. Furey. I do not know him; he is not a bosom buddy of mine. We served together as Cabinet colleagues for a very short time. Other than that, I do not know the gentleman other than a little bit socially, that we have met from time to time.

To me, politics are irrelevant. To me, if he is appointed for this job, which he no doubt will be, he parks his politics at the door. When he goes into work, he is the Chief Electoral Officer and he is the Commissioner of our interests, and he parks his politics at the door. I do not think the fact that he was a politician - for example, some people might think that is a dirty word - I do not think that should be used against anybody who wants to further their career. Sure, there are even some politicians who think they might make judges in the future.

I think I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I stood up today and said, because you were a politician you are going rule yourself out from any consideration in the future for anything that might require you to be impartial.

From what I know of Mr. Furey, he is a person of impeccable character. I have no reason to question his integrity. There are two pieces of integrity here. There is this personal integrity of the individual that the resolution deals with, but there is also the integrity of the office. Once he assumes the mantle of this job, that is what needs to become, and will, no doubt, become paramount to him. He takes his personal integrity with him wherever he goes and whatever he does. When he is in that role, no doubt, he has to make sure that the integrity of the office is preserved as well, and that is what he will be judged on.

I do not see that role as a combatant to anybody here in this House. In fact, as the Chief Electoral Officer, he is in charge of making sure that the rules that we all play by when it comes election time are enforced. We will see soon enough if he is going to be a fair referee, because there are all kinds of processes if he is not. You can appeal decisions of the Chief Electoral Officer. There are ways, there are court actions and everything else, if you feel disenfranchised in any way by the actions that the takes.

I do not see any reason to say he cannot be such-and-such just because he is a politician. I do not see that reason for not making somebody be there. I do not see the fact that a person should not go to a position because there is no precedent. As far as I know, the courts in this land are making precedents every day. There are all kinds of decisions that we never had, or precedents that we never, ever had before, but that should not stop us from thinking that you cannot do something if you feel like you want to do it. I do not get hamstrung by precedent, necessarily, to the point where you stymie yourself from ever looking at any other options.

I would, having had some experience with the Elections Act, recommend to Mr. Furey, once he gets into the job - and I understand he is tentatively on the job now - that he has to pay close scrutiny to seeing that the rules are used in everybody's best interests here, no matter what your politics. I am not getting into the personal piece of Mr. Joyce, but in that case - and I am familiar with the statement of claim there - it was not a case of just private members; it was a case where the system was in question.

I do firmly believe, and I have said this publicly and in other venues such as the IEC, that I do believe that, in that case, the Chief Electoral Officer ought to have come to the floor faster in defence of the system. Not of Mr. Joyce, but of the system. That is made known in my comments to the former Chief Electoral Officer.

Regarding the Commissioner of Members' private Interests, there are rules and guidelines there. There are privacy rules that Mr. Furey will have to follow. That is all outlined there, as to what he does. If he does not do it right then he, like anybody else, is subject to the rules and laws of this land.

So, contrary to what some might feel, that they do not think the appointment of a past politician is appropriate, I do not feel that way. I think it would be very hypocritical of me to say such. For those reasons, I will be voting in favour of the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I feel like this is the government's lesson today in openness and transparency, but I do not see all that many members on the other side of the House standing up yet.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The member would be well-advised, she will have the opportunity to see who stands in support of our choice for this today, and we will have the opportunity to see who stands in support of their choice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think there was any point of order there, just an opportunity for the Government House Leader to vent once again.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, there is a lesson in this. There is a lesson in this. What you are witnessing on this side of the House of Assembly today, Mr. Speaker, is a group of members who are prepared to stand on principle, prepared to stand and debate, no matter what bill, even if there are differences of opinion amongst ourselves. Mr. Speaker, that is the way it should be in this Legislature. Actually, I have a great deal more respect for that than I have for people who sit in silence, Mr. Speaker, and say absolutely nothing but are hauled into line when the line has to be formed. I guess we are going to see the line in very short order, as the Government House Leader has just indicated to us.

I think this is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that speaks to a position of tremendous integrity that is associated with our Legislature. I think that, as all members, we have an opportunity to voice our views because this is an individual that we are putting a tremendous amount of faith in.

I have no problem doing that, Mr. Speaker, absolutely no problem whatsoever. I just want to say that I understand the views that have been presented by both sides here today and I, as one person, have absolutely no problem in supporting the motion.

I have great confidence in Mr. Furey to carry out the role and responsibility that he has been tasked with, but sometimes when bills like this come to the Legislature and people have the gumption, I would say, to stand to their feet and truly express how they feel on a matter of principle, it is sometimes misconstrued as to how people may feel about a certain individual, and I can guarantee you that is not the case. There are people on this side of the Legislature, regardless of the silence from the other side, who have tremendous principles and do not mind expressing their views on any particular occasion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I just want to stand today, Mr. Speaker - the Government House Leader is getting testy again, getting very testy again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, he will have ample time, in closing this bill, to say whatever he wants to say. At this particular time, I will finish my comments, if the Government House Leader does not mind, Mr. Speaker, to give me that time, but I just wanted to say, for the record, I did not know if we were having a standing vote here today or not. I do not think it is actually necessary to have a standing vote, but, for the record, I did want to stand and to say that I did not have a problem with the appointment of Mr. Furey. I certainly have a tremendous amount of faith in him and credibility in him to do the job that he has been appointed to do. He knows that, and I am sure he has known that for a long time.

That will conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, we have another speaker before we close debate.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the resolution as it appears on the Order Paper.

I want to say that I have no problem whatsoever with the individual who has been appointed to the position, but I do have a problem in that I do not think an ex-politician should be appointed to these positions. I think it should be somebody who is within the public service and someone who is impartial, whether it is a Liberal, Conservative or NDP. It does not really matter who is being appointed here today.

I have nothing against the individual. I served in the caucus with the individual, a very capable individual. That is not the question here at all today. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of the individual.

I have a problem, Mr. Speaker, with what I see happening within the jurisdiction of positions within the House of Assembly. We seem to be taking individuals who have done their service to the Province, individuals who have a great commitment to the Province, served in roles within the government, and have gone out on pensions and now we are bringing them back; people who have done their service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be a politician or whether it be a public servant. Right now, we have people being appointed - the Citizens' Representative, for example, is a retired public servant filling a position that should be filled by somebody within the public service. It is a chain reaction. We are talking about our young people.

I think it is very, very important that we recognize in this House today that we have a lot of people packing up their bags and going to Alberta, a lot of young people with university degrees, entry level positions that should be coming into our public service. What we are doing is going out and hiring a Citizens' Representative, a former deputy minister, Privacy Commissioner, a former deputy minister on pensions, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation on a pension, and the Liquor Corp. All these positions should be occupied and filled by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They did their service, they paid into a pension plan and they are collecting a pension. Why not provide an opportunity for our young people? I am not saying that somebody who graduated from university should be the Citizens' Representative today, but I mean, it is a chain reaction.

I know when I started my career and was principal of a school, and got a job with the Department of Education, it opened up the position for another teacher on staff to be the principal. Then the chain reaction was that there was a graduate from Memorial University hired to replace the teacher who replaced me. We have people right now being appointed to these positions. I have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker, that we are not providing the opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador for our young people. The government is the worst culprit in terms of appointing people who are already on pensions to positions. I may have to vote against this particular resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now he closes debate at this reading.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

This is the first time, in thirteen years since I have been an elected member, where a debate has occurred about an Officer of the House. So I am obligated, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to respond to some of the statements made by members opposite in the Opposition, because Mr. Furey is not on the floor to defend himself today. I have no hesitation in defending him as our appointment, and I will do so gladly and willingly from a number of points of view.

First of all, the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Bellevue and others have a real problem that a former politician, an elected member of this House, former educator, somebody who has had a valuable contribution made to Newfoundland and Labrador, all of a sudden, by the very stature or nature of the fact that this person has made a contribution, should somehow be penalized or not be considered for any potential role within government when a Cabinet or a Premier asks that person to do so. Fundamentally, I find that offensive and I take exception to it.

Both the Member for Bellevue and the Member for Twillingate have tried to leave an impression here today, at least they know or ought to have known, that because it has been a very public issue with respect to somebody who has worked, whether in the public service - the Member for Bellevue has talked about somebody we have acting in a role, the acting Citizens' Representative, who is a retired public servant, who has a pension, who is fulfilling a need at the moment until a process is complete. They have made the same allegation, I suppose, that Mr. Furey and our representative, who has been a former educator and a member of this House, has a pension, and trying to leave an impression that somehow we are going to pay our, I guess, candidate before the House today, both a salary and a pension. Mr. Furey has said publicly -

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

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in listening to the minister opposite when he stands and speaks the facts, but at no point did I indicate or try to besmirch the gentleman's character by saying that he was going to collect a pension as well as collect his salary. I did not say that, minister, and I do not like you putting words in my mouth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

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

The fact of the matter is that it has been very public that Mr. Furey has indicated that he will be giving his pension to charitable purposes. So, I think that is important for us to clear up. This is not a monetary issue, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

Now, the members opposite talk about no advertisements. What a difference a couple of years makes. They say this is the Premier's prerogative and that he has made the choice. I can tell people with absolute certainty - and I believe my colleagues will say the same, I know they will - that the decision with respect to the nominee that we are bringing forward today, the Premier brought to the Cabinet process and asked directly: What do people think about this? Not one member of the Cabinet had any exception to the appointment that was made or the suggestion that has been made today. Not one, Mr. Speaker. So, it is a Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointment which means the Cabinet, which includes the Premier and all of his Cabinet.

Now, with respect to advertisements. This is my view. It may not be the correct one, but some of the undertones that have been suggested here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is my turn now, someone else's turn will come after I guess, I say to my colleagues.

The undertones of the debate here this afternoon have somewhat, in my view, talked about how this is precedent setting, no politician has done it and somehow leaving an impression that there is something untoward about this. I find that offensive, Mr. Speaker, and I believe I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say I find that offensive.

We talk about no advertisements. Here is what I also find offensive. Two months before the last election, former leader and Premier of the Liberal Party's brother-in-law is hired in the election office without any advertisement for two months, and after two months was up, went to run for an election. No advertisements associated with any of those sorts of job appointments, and members opposite have a difficulty with that today? They had a different standard, Mr. Speaker. There was no debate about that in this Legislature, I say, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, that what is happening here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is a nominee being brought before the House of Assembly in the light of day for all members to have their say, and I appreciate that. To this point, for the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I agree with her, that members should have the opportunity to speak to these appointments but I do take exception to the sort of lecture that we have received about having the gumption to stand up and everyone is going to be ordering the line.

Let's talk about gumption, if she wants to talk about gumption. She has hung herself out there, let's talk about gumption. I recall in this House when a former government raided the Labrador Transportation Fund, not a word from the member. Does anyone remember that? Not a single word publicly in this Chamber was uttered by that member. If you want to talk about gumption, let's talk about gumption.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, because the Government House Leader knows the Labrador Transportation Fund was never raided. The $97 million is being spent today at the pleasure of his government, and he knows that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

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

Legislation was introduced in this House - record of Hansard will demonstrate what I am saying is a point of fact, not a point of opinion. Not one word uttered by the member opposite.

A second thing, Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about gumption -

MS JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, she can't take it but she wants to dish it out. She can't take it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem taking it when it is the facts. The legislation was passed. What the hon. member is not saying is that the money was never ever rated from the transportation fund. In fact it was spent by his government when he was a Cabinet minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members not to use points of order to engage in debate. There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

When you are going to stand and point fingers and accuse members opposite of not having the gumption to stand on a point of principle, then you are going to have to stand up for your past actions, I say to the member opposite.

I am not quite finished yet, Mr. Speaker. We will conclude with this on the Labrador Transportation Fund. For two months, while that debate was going on, when questions were asked everyday in this House by the now Premier, that member did not speak not one word to the legislation that we are debating. Not one!

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about gumption. Let's talk about gumption, if she wants to talk about it. I have another point for her. Last week, she put out a press release that the Labrador Hydro Lower Churchill project should not go ahead unless there is an IBA for the Métis. Let me ask her this question, talk about gumption -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It has a lot to do with everything, I say to the Member for Grand Bank. It talks about gumption and being accused of not having it, when the very person who stands up and accuses people of not having it has never demonstrated in the past where she has had it.

Let me ask her this question: When she was a member of the Cabinet of the Grimes administration that supported the deal, the giveaway deal on the Lower Churchill in 2003, why didn't she have the gumption to stand by her so-called principles then and demand a Métis agreement and an IBA agreement for the Métis Nation at that time? Why, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

The fact of the matter is this, if you want to stand up as a member of this House and point fingers about members not standing up on principle or having gumption, then you be prepared to stand for your own record and for those that challenge you, where you have demonstrated that you never had the gumption to stand up on a few issues too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, back to the issue at hand.

With respect to some of the comments, I appreciate the support of members who support Mr. Furey and the appointment put forward, because, in my view, they have a larger view of the world. Somebody who has been in this House, who understands the history of politics, who understands what it is like to be an elected member, who has lived the life of an elected member, both from the Opposition and from the government side, I think, and we think, that person, whether it is Mr. Furey - and it is him right now - or anyone else who has that combination of experience will do an excellent job for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, because, ultimately, that is what it is all about.

I am happy to move this motion forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I hear a point of order being raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to raise a point during the member's speech on the issue of relevance to a lot of the debate, but my point of order is to remind hon. members that this is a position of an officer of this House, in fact a particular Officer of this House, one to whom all of us report. I would just, while I am on my feet, urge members opposite not to push the matter to a standing vote unless it is absolutely necessary, to a Division, because I think - if I may finish, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: It is an important officer, an officer of this House, who I think would need to have the support of this House and the support of each and every member of this House. I would just urge members opposite not to politicize the issue by calling for a standing vote, unless one is absolutely necessary, because it is unclear as to what the division might be of members in the House, just in order to maintain the dignity of the position and to recognize that while members here have expressed differences of opinion on this matter the will of the House will prevail.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that will be up to the members of the House, but let me say this: I would generally agree with the member opposite, but when members opposite, not you or your caucus, I say to the member of the NDP, make the allegation, we will see where members stand on the government side; as if members on this side of the House do not support this appointment. Well if that door has been opened by somebody else, I say to the member opposite, then we will make our own judgements on if we want a standing vote on it or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The motion is: That Mr. Charles J. Furey be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer under section 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991, effective May 1, 2006; and

That Mr. Charles J. Furey be appointed as Commissioner of Members' Interests under section 34(2) the House of Assembly Act, effective May 1, 2006.

All those in favour of the motion, say aye?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: It is the Chair's opinion that the motion is carried.

MR. E. BYRNE: We want division on that one.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. Harding, Mr. O'Brien, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. French, Mr. Skinner, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Randy Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Reid, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris

Mr. Speaker, 33 ayes and 4 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to move Order 3, that in accordance with Standing Order 11 the House -

Before I do, Mr. Speaker, congratulations, Mr. Furey.

[Applause]

MR. E. BYRNE: Motion 3, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today. I will move on that one first, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that under Standing Order 11 this House not adjourn today, Monday, May 15, at 5:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that under Standing Order 11 this House not adjourn today, Monday, May 15, 2006, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2". (Bill 24)

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

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

I am pleased to rise today to have some opening comments on this particular bill, Bill 24. Mr. Speaker, these are amendments that were put forward by the board at the Workers' Compensation Commission. I will read some points on it, and make for a few observations before I pass it on for debate here today.

Mr. Speaker, the Board of Directors at the Compensation Commission have requested that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act be amended to ensure the protection for commission employees against suits for actions done in good faith while operating under their own jurisdiction. The main word here is under good faith.

The current wording of the act has been long interpreted as providing immunity to the commission and its employees for being sued for good faith actions. Recent court cases, while not directly related to the issue of good faith actions, have highlighted the fact that there is inconsistency between the act and what it was intended to do.

Mr. Speaker, this legislative amendment will provide the commission and its employees with what they always thought they had in the first place, and that is a clear protection against suit when they carry out their duties within their jurisdiction, while in good faith.

Given that the staff and the officers of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division, a separate entity, operate under the authority of the same legislation, we are also going to clarify that they will have the same protection in relation to good faith actions.

It is well noted, too, that all other provincial legislation, such as, the Public Utilities Act, the Royal Newfoundland and Labrador Constabulary Act, the Citizens' Representative Act, the Medical Act, and so on, all provide protection from suits for employees for anything done in good faith in the course of their employment under these acts. As well, an amendment to the act would bring the commission in line with most other Workers' Compensation Boards across Canada who have provided statutory immunity from suits for their employees and officers in cases of good faith actions.

Mr. Speaker, we fully support the commission on their request, and its employees and the review division, their employees who act honestly and in good faith carrying out their duties under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a lot more to can say on this particular matter. The fact of the matter is, this has been considered for the last couple of years and it was not until it was brought forward in court cases that a judge pointed out the fact that employees were not protected under good faith. Now, if there are fraudulent matters or something untoward that happens, that is a different matter, and that would be handled in the same way in court cases today, but in the matter when the employees or the officers of the commission or the review division do act in good faith, do follow proper procedures and so on, Mr. Speaker, they are protected like any other government employee.

Mr. Speaker, this is something, I think, that is long overdue again. It is probably something that should have been done for quite some time, but this is certainly following the request of the commission to follow this pursuit, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise for just a few minutes. I think this is a very important piece of legislation. It deals with the employees of the Workplace Health and Safety Commission, and also the employees of the review commission.

I guess what we are really talking about is making a comfortable environment for the employees of this organization. We talk so much about occupational health and safety, in terms of what we should be doing in terms of making the workplace a better place to work in. I guess one of the problems with this, before this legislation going through, is that these people are under a lot of stress.

I dealt with members of the Workers' Compensation Commission, the staff at Workers' Compensation. I never always agreed with the decisions that they made. I do not think any member who sits in this House of Assembly agrees with all of the decisions that are made, because mostly we are in sort of an adversary role in terms of Workers' Compensation, in terms of out there trying to get the rights and the benefits for our constituents, and rightly so.

In a lot of cases, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we are probably the only advocate that people have to turn to. I know, over the years, I have represented a great number of constituents before the tribunal, and spent a lot of time doing that. I always found that the people who work at the tribunal are very, very professional, very conscientious, and do a real good job in terms of hearing the cases, hearing what you have to say, and are very, very courteous, the ones who are there now. I guess I have had seventeen years of doing it, so I have seen a lot of people come and go. I think we need the people in that workplace knowing that they personally could not be liable, or they would be protected under the law.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation. I guess I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the staff of both of these agencies in terms of the great work they do, in terms of the public service and the commitment they have in terms of working out any difficulties that injured workers would have.

I will be supporting this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill 24, and say to the minister that I certainly do not have a problem with the changes that are indicated in Bill 24. Workers at the Workplace, Health and Safety Commission are the same as workers at any employment site across this Province or country. As individual workers, they should not be subject to being sued; there is no question about that.

We could have a lot of problems with decisions arising out of the commission. I am not saying that there are not times when the frustrations of injured workers are directed, probably, in some cases, towards the work case workers at the commission, but I think we should always step back and remember that it is their job to implement the policies of the workplace commission, and it is not policies that the workers invented; it is policies that are set by people other than them. Their only job, as a result of their employment by the commission, is to apply the policies as they are written. They do not make them. They do not interpret them. In many cases, they have directives that they must follow.

This does not preclude anything that is done in bad faith being subject to litigation, but it does protect workers who, through the course of their employment, make decisions that are in good faith; their good faith actions by them prevent them from being taking personally and dragged before the courts and sued because of a decision that they may make in good faith.

There are lots of examples around to support this in other organizations, such as labour organizations or fraternal organizations, where individuals are not held responsible. The organization themselves may be able to be sued, the same as the commission - someone may take them to court - but the workers of the commission should not be subject to courts and litigations because of a decision that they made in good faith.

Whether or not we agree with it at all is irrelevant, but the fact is that they can only work with the tools they are given and they can only make decisions in good faith based upon the information that they have and the policy that they have to adhere to.

I support, I say to the minister, the changes to this legislation, and I will conclude my remarks with that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, speaks now he will close debate on second reading.

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

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

I certainly will not prolong this debate. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues opposite and say that we do have a great staff working at the Commission and the review division. I am sure they will look forward to the passing of this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No 2. (Bill 24)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 24)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 24.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 24?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Committee stage debate on Bill 24.

CHAIR: Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No. 2." (Bill 24)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No. 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 24 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move 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'.

Motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 24 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 24 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

Leave is granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I now have the pleasure to move third reading of Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 24 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader.

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

I want to move some first readings of notices I gave today. That will give us the opportunity to get the bills distributed.

I want to move first reading of, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 26)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Bill," carried. (Bill 26)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 26 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I should note that the bill which I just quoted, Bill 26, stands in the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I apologize for the error in my presentation.

On motion, Bill 26 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 want to move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 30)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," carried. (Bill 30)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 30 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30 has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, Bill 30 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 want to move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 31)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act," carried. (Bill 31)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 31 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act, has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, Bill 31 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.

Motion 1 on today's Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Certain Resolutions Respecting the Imposition of Taxes on Tobacco, or more commonly known as, Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 6.

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.

 

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to begin debate on Bill 6, Committee of the Whole debate on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, and the resolution that accompanies Bill 6.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is very straightforward. It is giving authority to put into effect a 1 cent increase per cigarette, from 17 cents to 18 cents, and an increase on per gram of fine cut tobacco from 25 cents per gram to 30 cents per gram.

This is brought in with particular reason. We have been very strong, as a government, on dealing with the effects of smoking on people's health. Of course, we brought in the legislation here dealing with smoking in public places, and made that all-inclusive. We want to follow through. We know that cigarette smoking is - in young people, we want to eliminate it in young people, not just reduce it. We would like to see it eliminated there because of the effects it is having. We know that it is price sensitive, particularly with young people. If we can discourage young people from doing that by raising taxes on that, I think it is very positive. It is certainly applauded by the health agencies, the Department of Health, and right across the country, any particular group.

What it will mean, Mr. Chairman, is extra revenue to the Province. Even though consumption goes down, prices go up, so consumption, we hope, will go down more than we forecasted. We forecasted what we consider to be a reasonable decrease in consumption, the same thing we did last year. There should be an extra - based on the 5 cents per gram, there should be around $5,077,000 extra revenues on that item because of that. Based on going from 17 cents to 18 cents, there should be around $3,688,000 we project in extra revenue.

You are looking at, in total, about $8.7 million, between $8.7 million and $8.8 million extra dollars in revenue because of these particular issues. The important thing, Mr. Chairman, this was not instituted as a revenue measure for the coffers of government. This was brought in for a purpose of carrying out our plan to deal with people, and the effects from dealing with smoking.

We see, in society today, so many people whose lives are put at risk. So many people lose their lives today, due to smoking, and we want to reduce that. We want people to live longer, live healthier. We want to reduce costs in our health care system so that people can have a better quality of life.

That is the purpose, what is the driving force behind government's policy on this particular motion here, and hopefully we can get approval here, of the people in the Legislature, on this and we can move very quickly.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased today to stand and respond to Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

Well, that is about one of the easiest sources of generating new revenue for government, because there is nothing to it, really. It is only the stroke of the pen and you have an extra $9 million to work with.

As the minister indicated, when you look at the Budget predictions for this coming year, and you look at what revenue is generated from tobacco, one will easily see that tobacco is going to bring in $125 million. One hundred and twenty-five million dollars, that is a lot of money. That is a lot of money.

MR. SULLIVAN: Big bucks.

MS THISTLE: Big bucks, the minister said, and he is right. Last year there was $116 million generated from the sale of tobacco in this Province. It is considered to be the sinful tax, one might say.

When you look at the other sinful tax revenues in this Province, you look at the lottery. Lottery sales in this Province generate a revenue for the Province of $97 million. Of course, another big money-maker is liquor. Liquor generates $101 million in sales for this government; tobacco, $125 million.

So you are looking at, this year alone, out of those three sins, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will bring in $323 million. Now, that is what they are forecasting, but more than likely they will bring in more than that because, even though the price of cigarettes goes up, you will not put off smokers who want to smoke. The addiction is still there, supposing the prices go through the roof, and most smokers will tell you that they are already through the roof.

It is a broader issue, a social issue, when you look at the fact that, with tobacco sales, liquor sales, lottery sales, VLTs, you have a social problem in this Province that needs addressing. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Finance, on Budget Day, say that this government is going to put an extra $1 million in the Budget to strengthen resources to assist persons struggling with gambling and other addictions.

Now, it is very interesting, when you look at the figures here today, they are going to rake in about $40 million extra this year in liquor, cigarettes, VLTs and lottery, and they are going to provide $1 million - only $1 million - to help those with the addiction to kick the gambling habit. Now, is that a fair assessment of a government that is supposed to be socially conscious? I don't think so.

The minister rose in his place on Budget Day and said: I am pleased to advise that ninety VLTs will be remove from the service two days from now. That was March 30. I wonder, on April Fool's Day, which would be two days later, were there ninety VLTs removed from establishments in our Province? I wonder, did the Minister of Finance get a report from his officials telling him that two days later 90 per cent of the VLTs were removed from establishments in this Province? I doubt that very much, and I doubt very much if those ninety are removed yet today, May 15.

This speaks to a broader issue, I think, when you look at the revenue that is going to be created from the sales of tobacco. I stood in my place here last week, and the government announced a $1.3 million wellness program. I stood in my place and made representation for the Town of Badger, who wanted to get in on that program, and their application was denied.

If this same government has a commitment to rural communities in this Province, they would have said: You know, that wellness program, the majority of that money should go to rural communities because they do not have any other resources to tap into. They do not have any government offices. They do not have any fitness centres. They do not have any YMCAs. They do have any curling or skating rinks. They do not have the baseball fields, the soccer fields, the tennis and the badminton courts, and the golf, and every part of recreation that you would find in the bigger centers; but, when government decided to bring in this wellness plan, I do not know what criteria they use for approval, because when you have 141 applications wanting to get in on a program that is going to improve the lifestyle of ordinary citizens of our Province and you only approve thirty-four applications, that says a lot about government's commitment to wellness in this program. Number one, they are paying lip service to a plan saying that they have a wellness program when, in fact, they are very selective on who gets the funding. There are over 100 applications they are not servicing.

I stand on my feet every day in this House of Assembly and advocate for the people of the Buchans area. It would only take about $1 million to put that road in good shape, 100 kilometres, but I can never bend the ear of anyone on the other side. Even though the Province is going to generate $9 million of brand new income on the sale of just tobacco alone - can you imagine? Just in this Province alone they are going to generate $9 million just on tobacco, but I cannot get $1 million out of all that money that is generated to look after the Buchans highway.

This government, two years ago, brought in 155 new fees that cost the taxpayers of this Province $27 million. This year, in the Budget, the Minister of Finance stood up, said he was reversing those fees and he was going to give consumers a break in this Province. What did he do? The fees that he cancels are only worth $1 million. There is still $26 million extra that the people of this Province are paying out of their own pockets for fees like a driver's licence, having to go and get your driver's licence and it has increased from $140 to $180. Okay, that is only one fee. That is only one fee that has gone up.

We have the paramedics in our midst today. This government, two years ago, decided to increase the ambulance fees from $85 to $115 for a one-way trip. Can you tell me: If the government were thinking along the lines of logic and their wanting to provide excellent first-rate service to those who are in need of an ambulance, wouldn't that extra money that is coming from the fees, the increased fees for ambulance services, go towards hiring new paramedics to look after the population on the Northeast Avalon? If you were using logic, that would be the first thing you would think of. There are many people out there today who realize that ambulance fees have gone up. Maybe they thought that was the reason, so they could hire more paramedics, buy more ambulances, and maybe even have the 911 service right across our Province.

I heard a man this morning on Open Line. He had a daughter aged twenty-five who was in severe pain and he decided to call the ambulance because she could not even sit down in the family car to get to the hospital. It was twenty-seven minutes from the time he made the call until the ambulance actually arrived on their doorstep, and the girl was in excruciating pain. It took putting her on a stretcher to bring her to the hospital. Now, one would think that the increase to fees for ambulances was going to look after that situation.

I have a senior in Grand Falls-Windsor who called me before Christmas, she was ninety-six years old and she only needed a five-minute drive to go from her house to the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor. Do you know that cost her $115. She could not get in a taxi, she was too ill, but it cost $115 for a ninety-six year old woman to get an ambulance that took a five-minute drive. Now, I am sure that when she had to pay that extra money, which she could ill afford, she thought that was going to improve ambulance service all around the Province.

Today I wanted the Minister of Finance to answer a question I had on gas prices and home heating fuel prices. Unfortunately, Question Period ended, but I doubt very much if I would have gotten an answer because I have been trying that for days and days and days and I haven't gotten an answer yet. This Minister of Finance has an opportunity to do something for all households in this Province on home heating. Right now, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are going before the Public Utilities Board. They are going to be looking for an increase. Some people are saying that it is going to be a 5 per cent increase. By the time that gets to Newfoundland Power and gets on our light bill, what is it going to be? Yet, this minister today, who was in opposition three years ago, he called himself an advocate for people. He said, and I have it on the Hansard record, that if he ever became a minister in the government, he would make sure that those people who use electricity to heat their homes would get a subsidy. What did he do when he got to be a minister and the minister with almost the top job, the one that controls the purse strings to a certain degree? He does not control the purse strings entirely because there are lots of times the Premier will run out and fund a certain project that the minister will have no knowledge of, but he can always find a way to include it.

So there is a case of a situation where those on the other side - now, when they were in Opposition they advocated for people, so they said, but once they got over there and put on their Cabinet suits they changed their tune. So, we saw in a paper over the weekend, in The Telegram, where the Minister of Finance changed his tune on the paramedics. I brought it to his attention many times, how he has changed his tune on what he would do for people burning electricity in their homes. That is another issue. Apart from that, he has an opportunity right now to give a rebate to all households in this Province that are burning electricity or any form of home heat.

Someone said this is not the Budget. The Member for Gander said this is not the Budget. This is a money bill and in a money bill, I must instruct the Member for Gander, that he can, or I can, or anybody can speak on anything that is connected with money. Now, every decision of government is about money and people. Almost the same as when I was a bank manager, everything was connected with money and people.

Decisions you make in government affect the well-being of people. We saw day after day, we witnessed day after day that the issues that the Opposition are bringing forward, a lot of them are centred around the plight of people in rural communities. Now, I do not know if it is the intention of this government to let those communities fall by the wayside, or are they really going to live up to the commitment to do their best for rural communities? Sometimes I question their motives, particularly when I look around and I see what needs to be done in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I see the money that is wasted under the Rural Secretariat. When I saw the annual report last year - now, there is neither one this year. I expect there was nothing to put in a book. There was nothing to put in a book this year, so the Rural Secretariat decided: I would be better off now if I never printed a book because it would only be up to the constant glare of the Opposition and the general public and I really - there was nothing to show for the work of the Rural Secretariat.

Today I stood in my place and I brought attention to the fact that the Buchans-Millertown area is contributing a great deal to the provincial Treasury. What are we getting in return for contributing to our provincial Treasury? That is a couple of businesses that just happened without any government interference. It just happened with private companies building on an idea and a common resource and creating a profit, a profit that will go into the Treasury of this Province. Now, I do not know what it takes. When you look at the phantom Department of Business that we have here in this government -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

Will I get another opportunity in the evening?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much.

Well, I will sit down in that case.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report - or do I have to rise the Committee? I do not think I have to rise the Committee if we are breaking for supper.

By agreement, if we could leave the Committee sitting, we will take our supper recess and return back at 7:00 p.m., Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair understands, by agreement, that this House will now stand recessed until 7:00 p.m.

This House is now in recess.

 


May 15, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 20A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The committee is ready to continue hearing debate on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to get up tonight to have a few words about this bill. For everybody in TV land, I want to welcome everybody to the family-friendly House of Assembly again for one of our night sittings. I guess for today, in terms of if it is appropriate, today happens to be my daughter's birthday and I just rushed away from the birthday cake to be here to make a speech in the family-friendly House of Assembly that Danny promised in the last election.

MR. E. BYRNE: Go home out of it, boy.

MR. BARRETT: Go home out of it? Well, I guess if the House Leader is going to adjourn the House I will go home, but they indicated that it would be a family-friendly House of Assembly.

I want to talk about the tobacco tax. I have to say, I have been around for seventeen years listening to finance ministers. I think there is something that happens to the Minister of Finance. I do not care with Party it is or what side of the House they sit on, but I think there must be a room on the first floor of Confederation Building that they lock them in because -

AN HON. MEMBER: They do some mind training.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they do some mind training on the Minister of Finance because I listened intently to the Minister of Finance today when he got up to talk about this tax, that he was not going to do it for the taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, boy, not a bit.

MR. BARRETT: Not a bit. The tax is irrelevant actually, Mr. Chairman. It had nothing to do with the tax. The revenue is insignificant, actually.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, as an aside, when I grew up on Woody Island I remember lobsters were twenty-eight cents a pound and you could buy a pack of cigarettes for thirty cents a pack. Well, I just had lobster for my supper and I paid $10 for it. I bought a pack of cigarettes on the way home and I paid $10 for a pack of cigarettes. So, I guess nothing has changed. The price of lobster and the price of a pack of cigarettes is about the same thing today as it was back then.

MR. E. BYRNE: What did you enjoy more?

MR. BARRETT: I am not sure whether I enjoyed the lobster more or I enjoyed the cigarette on my way to the House of Assembly. I am not too sure which was more enjoyable, but I can assure you that the cigarette lasted just as long as the lobster did. So, one cigarette lasted just as long as the lobster did. Yesterday I had a couple and they did not last very long either.

Every Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, will say that we are raising the tax on tobacco because we want to prevent people from smoking. There is nothing further from the truth, Mr. Chairman, because every indication is that every Minister of Finance is looking forward to the tax that is on the tobacco. I made a recommendation when I was in government and I make a recommendation now. If tobacco is so dangerous to our health, why have we legalized it? Why do we permit the sale of it? If you are really serious about tobacco and the effect on people's health, why do we sell it in this Province? I said this to former Minister's of Finance and I say to the present Minister of Finance, if tobacco is such a danger to the health of individuals, why sell it?

Then the Minister of Finance is going to come back - they get in this room over on the first floor and they come back with the same answer and say: Oh well, if we ban it, then they will bring it in illegally. There would be people importing it illegally. There would be people bringing it into the Province and people will be able to get their hands on it, but if it is so dangerous to people's health I think it should be banned. I would be the first one to introduce a motion in this House of Assembly tonight that we ban cigarettes. As soon as I finish the pack that I have left I will not touch them anymore. I will not be able to get them because I will not be able to buy them. If you cannot buy it - you know, for people who drink, there are restriction in terms of getting alcohol. You have to be a certain age and all that sort of stuff.

I never heard the minister today talking about what he was going to do to help those of us who are addicted. I did not think that he was going to give us free prescriptions to get Nicorettes or Zyban or whatever the other drug is used to prevent people from smoking. If he was really serious he would take the millions and millions - I think it is $112 million that he gets from the tobacco tax. If he was really serious about banning and wanting to do away with the tobacco, he would bring in an addiction policy to make sure that people would not be addicted to tobacco. He would put on programs and have people, where they could go to the drugstore and they could get the things that people can take to prevent them from smoking if they are worried about their health.

It is interesting, we did not see an increase in liquor prices. I want to talk a little bit in terms of the damage that is caused by liquor.

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot put them all up.

MR. BARRETT: You cannot put them all up. I heard in a recent newscast that the cost to the federal treasury of alcohol, just on alcohol syndrome, was $6 billion. Six billion dollars in damage that is done to young children because of alcohol. I have a friend whose young boy of five years of age was run down by a drunk driver. That family has been suffering all their lives in terms of the implications that particular accident had on that family's life.

I think if a person smokes they are just killing themselves, because you cannot smoke anywhere now. You soon will not be able to smoke outdoors. It is interesting, I was down to the concert last night. I do not know where all the non-smokers are gone, but I went down to the Willie Nelson concert last night and there is a backdoor that leads out to the rock cliff where the Mile One Stadium is at and there were more people outdoors than there were inside. There was a cloud of smoke, I guess you could see it rising up through the city last night. There were a lot of people. There does not seem to be that many people - I do not know what the reduction is, the Minister of Finance did not talk about it. Are there less people smoking today than they did twenty years ago, less people smoking now than there were two years ago? There are less people. I seen an awful lot of young people at the stadium last night. Not too many young people go to Willie Nelson. Not too many people down to the Willie Nelson concert. There were quite a number of people there and I do not see any kind of addiction counselling provided to people who are smokers.

The Member for Trinity North, he works in the Department of Health. He is over there in the Department of Health. I am sure he is quite familiar with all the programs that are there in terms of addiction, but I never, ever saw anything advertised for people other than what is put on by the Lung Association and the Cancer Society and other organizations. I have not seen anything done in terms of a program for people who are addicted to smoking. I do not know if the Province's drug program will give you the patch or the Nicorettes or the other things that you could take to prevent you from smoking.

I would like for the Minister of Finance to get up and tell us about some of the programs that are available. I know he got up and bragged about all the taxes he is going to bring in. He got right excited, as the Minister of Finance really does. He gets really excited when he talks about money and how much money he is bringing in. So, I guess there are a few questions I would like to ask the minister when we are in committee and it is time for questions. What kind of an addictions policy and program that is available to smokers within the Province that is not operated by volunteer organizations but is actually sponsored by the government? How much do they actually spend on the addictions counselling?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words on the Tobacco Tax Act. It is an interesting piece of legislation because it is brought in by the Minister of Finance, but interestingly enough, the rationale given by the Minister of Finance in the Budget Speech had nothing to do with finance. It had all to do with health. So I am going to talk about health, and if someone wants to rule me out of order, I guess we will have to rule the minister out of order and the legislation out of order and everything else because the minister said the sole purpose of this legislation was not to collect revenue, but was actually to deter or further deter people from smoking. Having said that, I do want to agree with him in one respect, that the cost of cigarettes actually does deter smoking in one group of people in whom it is very important to deter smoking and that is young people.

We had a committee, this Legislature, some ten, twelve, fourteen years ago, I guess now, dealing with amendments to legislation regarding smoking in public places. It was very interesting, because this was a time when committees were more common. We do not have them anymore now. They do not want to have committees to study introducing drug plans. We do not send legislation to committees, but this was legislation that actually went to a committee of the House. We had witnesses from the tobacco companies, we had witnesses from the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, we had witnesses from other organizations come before a committee of this House to make comments on legislation. One of the most significant pieces of information brought to the committee was, actually, some hard evidence, some scientific evidence which indicated that there was a deterrent for young people, to stop young people smoking, if you raise the price. If you made it more expensive then kids would not smoke. This was at the time legislation was being considered to ban the selling of cigarettes loose, individual.

I remember the time when I was a kid, Mr. Chairman, and I do not know if it was just around the time you were a kid, I think, when you could go to the store and you could buy yourself a Coke and a smoke and a raisin square for about twelve cents.

MS THISTLE: All true.

MR. HARRIS: All true says the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

A Coke and a smoke or a Spur and a Krinkle, or whatever your poison was, you could get it for about ten cents or twelve cents in those days. You could buy loose cigarettes, and it was all a big deal for twelve-year-olds or thirteen-year-olds to be heroes and have a smoke with the boys. That was something that people did because that was cool to do when you were a kid, when I was a boy. It is now illegal to sell cigarettes loose. There was a time, about ten years or so ago, when that legislation was brought forward, that the response of the cigarette companies was to have special packages of cigarettes with only five in it, I think. Do you know what they were called? Members know what they were called. They were called kiddie packs. They called them kiddie packs because they were designed, specifically, to market the children.

Now, this is an addictive substance, Mr. Chairman, as everyone knows. They say, in fact, that it is more addictive than some of the drugs that are outlawed and banned, like heroine and morphine and all of those things. That cigarette tobacco and nicotine is more addictive than them. Yet, the tobacco companies were satisfied to issue kiddie packs because they thought that their market for new cigarette smokers was in danger because the Province was outlawing individually loose cigarettes. So the young heroes of today could not go out and have their Coke and their smoke and their raisin square for ten or fifteen or twenty cents. It is a lot more than that now but inflation has obviously set in. I think it was good legislation. It was good legislation because it took the tobacco companies and said we are going to try and stop - cut off your customers before you get them addicted.

So, then they had a new plan, something they called Operation ID. Now, we were also told - if you go to any of the stores, they say: We only sell cigarettes to adults. Now, this is to catch the twelve-year-olds when they are seventeen or eighteen. Obviously, cigarette smoking is an adult thing to do. All they are doing here is reinforcing the notion in young people that you have to be older than you really are. The same kind of motivation that caused people like me, when they were thirteen, twelve or fourteen, I forget which age it was, to want to smoke a cigarette - I am not prepared to make a full confession here today - to have a cigarette when they were kids. I smoked for ten or fifteen years. I gave it up when I was twenty-seven.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Absolutely true. It was not easy either, I tell you.

The same motivation that was attracting smoking to kids when I was young is now being aimed at young people who are seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen. When you go to the store, you see the big row of cigarettes and a big forbidden sign, forbidden. You cannot have cigarettes only if you are an adult. What do kids do? They find cigarettes so they can go out and prove to their friends that they are actually an adult. It was suggested to this committee by experts, by people who studied this stuff, that this was, in fact, a way - this was all sponsored by the tobacco industry, because this was actually a marketing ploy of the tobacco industry to get those signs in stores so that kids would actually believe that they have something to look forward to, when being an adult they can smoke. Now, that is how subtle and that is how insidious the whole tobacco industry is when it comes to having new customers and the new customers come from young people.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about the number of smokers going down, and that is true. The number of smokers are going down. But while the number of smokers amongst adults was going down, do you know who the biggest increase in the number of smokers were? Young girls. Young girls, Mr. Chairman, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen. They have been somehow induced to believe that smoking cigarettes has some kind of dietary effect, that it suppresses the appetite, that it is good for diets, that it is sexy, that it is cool, Virginia Slims and all this sort of stuff. Again, targeting young people. Targeting them on the basis of some kind of lifestyle or insecurities, or whatever it is that they can find, and I am sure they paid millions of dollars to find out what the vulnerabilities are.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have a problem with this legislation, even though it is a tax measure that is not designed to raise taxes. Although I am sure it will raise a few bucks. I have never known the Minister of Finance to turn down dollars being paid to him in taxes, but I think I support it for that reason.

I do agree with some of the comments of the Member for Bellevue. There does need to be more vigorous support for people on social assistance who have a drug card, who are trying to kick the habit. I know we had complaints over the years of people saying that the drug card would not give them the patch. They were prescribed the patch by their doctors. Our drug plan - and maybe the Minister of Health or the spokesperson for the Minister of Health can answer this - that the provincial drug plan would not allow people in receipt of a drug card to have a prescription for the patch. That is wrong, Mr. Chair. If someone is trying to valiantly fight an addiction, has a doctor's support and help, then that should be something, some assistance and some support, that they can give.

Maybe the Minister of Finance will be prepared to say to the Minister of Health that: Look, whatever money we raise, whatever additional revenue we raise on this, I am going to have a little chat with you Mr. Minister of Health and I am going to say to you, we want this to be revenue neutral. We do not want to actually collect this money. We are going to collect it, but we are not actually going to add it to the Consolidated Revenue Funds. We want to, at the same time, increase our support for people who are trying to kick the habit, because there are lots of people who are, Mr. Chair. There are lots of people who are. I know members of this House have tried it off and on over the years; some with success, some without. We have had discussions about it on the floor of the House when various pieces of legislation have come forward. It is something that is important from a public health perspective.

We even have situations now, Mr. Chair - I was reading in a magazine in the last couple of days where, you know, there is a big debate on public or private health care, and there are actually people across this country who think that people who smoke ought to be put to the back of the line when it comes to receiving health care, that they should not be given the same priority service as a non-smoker. That is amazing, Mr. Chair! That is not a big percentage but a certain percentage, that 18 per cent, 19 per cent or 20 per cent of the people of Canada think that if you are a smoker this should put you in a different category for certain types of operations. I am opposed to that, Mr. Chair. I think that is discriminatory, I think that is blameworthy, because that could be someone who is addicted, far more addicted than I was, Mr. Chair. I was able to quit, but I am sure there are people who are far more addicted than I was who are victims, to some extent, of the tobacco companies.

That is why, Mr. Chair, this government - I do not see the Minister of Justice here - but this government is suing the tobacco companies to recover health care costs. I do not know where that is. I have not heard a report recently. I do not know where that is. There have been recent decisions out of British Columbia with new legislation and new tax and new approaches being taken. I would like to hear what the Minister of Justice has to say about the progress of our litigation, because it is something that obviously the government sees as important enough to recover the health care costs resulting from people being addicted to tobacco, through no fault of their own.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

By leave for a minute or so just to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some hon. members want me to sit down, it must be because they have something to say. If they want to take their turn, I would be very happy to sit down and let them speak, and I will get up and speak again. This is a debate in which people can speak for ten minutes and others can respond.

Mr. Chairman, I say I support the legislation but I would like to see - and I know this is contrary to certain principles - but I would like to see the Minister of Finance rise in his place and say that we are anticipating to receive a certain amount of revenue from this. He has not really said how much he expects to get, but that: I am anticipating a certain amount of revenue, but please be assured, Members of the House, that is going to be additional money going to support efforts to help people quit smoking and to help convince people not to start. Because that is where is all happens, that is where the rubber hits the road; young people taking up smoking at a early age, getting addicted and then spending the rest of their life, or a large part of it, trying to stop. It is not easy, Mr. Chairman. Anybody who has tried to do that knows it is not easy.

I regret, to some extent, people who are addicted having to pay a little extra money, but the benefit as a deterrent to young people, to me, Mr. Chairman, outweighs the additional costs. If I had some comfort from the Minister of Finance that the additional revenue being raised by this measure was going to be used to increase the expenditure of government in assisting people to stop or convincing people not to start, then I would be even more willing to support this legislation as having that kind of effect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise tonight to speak on this piece of legislation concerning the increase in tobacco tax. That being a money bill, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I can speak on anything now on which the government spends money or on anything on which the government raises money. We can speak forever on this, it is like speaking on the Budget, I guess, but I will try to limit my comments in the first stage of tonight on tobacco tax.

I was somewhat amazed - I guess I should have known it having sat here in the House of Assembly for quite some time - with the amount of money that we are collecting on tobacco tax in this Province. Apparently, this increase alone is going to net the provincial government, the Minister of Finance, $9 million. That is just this increase alone; a $9 million increase in tobacco taxes this year for a total of $125 million. They are going to take in $125 million this year in tobacco tax, and you wonder why they will not, as my colleague from Bellevue says, abolish or prohibit cigarettes from being sold in the Province. I can see why now, because they are going to take in $125 million. I believe also what my colleague from Bellevue said when he said this has nothing to do with a tax grab, this has all to do with people's health. Well, I say to the minister that I am sure it wasn't too many short years ago that the tobacco tax netted the Province $60 million. Today, it is netting the Province $125 million. I am not aware that we have seen any significant decrease in the number of smokers in the Province. In fact, like the Leader of the NDP said, if anything, smoking is more prevalent today among young girls, teenage girls, than it has ever been.

I say to the minister, he should probably take that $9 million he is going to collect, and a portion or all of the $125 million he is going to collect overall, and do something about these addictions, because that is what cigarette smoking is, it is an addiction. In fact, I heard recently there was a study conducted on 100 doctors. I think they ranked cigarette smoking as the third hardest addiction to kick, right behind Heroin and Cocaine. I believe that, Mr. Chairman.

This government does absolutely nothing to try to prevent smoking amongst young people, or try to convince people to give up smoking, except by raising taxes. We know, we have seen that enough times to know, that is not going to be a deterrent to smoking. I can remember when you could buy a cigarette - as the Leader of the Opposition said, you buy a bottle of Spur. I think they used to say a Coke, a toke and twelve-cent cake for twenty-five cents. That is what you could buy. You could buy a cigarette, a bottle of Coke and what they used to call a twelve cent cake. I do not know how much a twelve cent cake costs today either, but I guarantee you that the cost of cigarettes has gone up considerably, to say the least, over the last fifteen or twenty years, but we do not see a reduction, a comparable reduction, in the number of people who are kicking the habit and butting out.

Mr. Chairman, enough said on cigarettes. I want to talk about taxes, which this government has been taking in, not only from the tobacco tax, but it was only last year that the Minister of Finance raised every single fee known to the people of this Province. In fact, he even created a couple of new ones; one being the death certificate. Prior to 2005, a death certificate was free of charge. If I can do it, Mr. Chairman, I will never pay one and no one belonging to me will ever pay for a death certificate, that the hon. Minister of Finance brought in last year. I suppose to settle up my estate, whatever that is worth, when I die, someone is going to be forced to cough up the $5 to say that Gerry Reid is dead and buried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five.

MR. REID: Twenty-five dollars. I am sorry.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in the House of Assembly last week, it is a good thing that the Minister of Finance was not born fifty or one hundred years ago when they used to put the coppers on your eyes to keep them closed in the coffin, because he would have been in there rooting those out too. He is after taxing everything else. Last year he increased the tax on every single item we know and this year he came out and reduced two or three, and wanted us all to stand up over here and applaud him. The highlight of the fees that he reduced or eliminated was the polar bear fee. Well, I dare say he is going to have to increase cigarettes by another 5 per cent or 6 per cent next year to pay for the loss in fees of the polar bear.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to talk about the increases in fees, I want to mention some of the fees that pertain to my district, for example, and some of the ways that I think the government should spend these taxes in my district. The first one that comes to mind is one that I have been talking about now for almost three years, three budgets I suppose anyway, and that is the increase in ferry rates.

I listened to the members opposite get up and try to explain the great job that they are doing on ferry rates when this government promised, during the last election, that they were going to eliminate ferry rates to bring them in line with the cost of road travel. I listened with great interest as the new Minister of Transportation and Works - because the one who was there in the position before never tried to explain it the way that the current one does. He is trying to convince the people of Fogo Island that if they reduced ferry rates to bring the cost of travel in line with road transportation they would actually end up getting a larger ferry rate increase than they already have. Now, Mr. Chair, that defies logic. That defies logic! I will use the example time and time and time again until the new Minister of Transportation and Works finally realizes the error in his ways and maybe he will stop saying it.

Currently, if you own a transport truck on Fogo Island, and you put that truck on the ferry on Fogo Island, I think it is thirteen kilometres across the run; nine miles. Yes, thirteen kilometers. He is telling me that the cost of road transportation - because that is what he says, it is in line with road transportation. Right now, to put that truck on for a return trip, for twenty-six kilometers, he says is going to cost $152.50. Just imagine! He has the gall, a face like a robber's horse I suppose you could say, he has the face to stand up in the House of Assembly and actually say - and I see the Government House Leader over there now and I think he is going to call me on a point of order and say that is unparliamentary. If it is, I withdraw it. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, he has the face, or the gall as we used to say around the bay, he has the gall to tell me that it costs, to drive a transport truck twenty-six kilometres, $152.50. Well I say, God help that poor individual if he has to drive that truck to St. John's, if that is what it costs to haul that over the highway. The gall of him to stand up here and tell me and tell the people of the Province that they would actually pay more if they honoured the commitment that they made in the Blue Book, that they were going to eliminate ferry rates and bring the cost of ferry transportation in line with that of road transportation. He cannot do it. He can talk till the cows come home, as the Premier said last year, he can talk till the cows come home and no one is going to believe that.

That is one thing he could do with his newfound wealth, I say to the Minister of Finance, with his tobacco tax increase and his newfound wealth from the oil industry. He is talking about surplus budgets and patting himself on the back and doing flips, and out to all the Chambers of Commerce and the Boards of Trade in the Province telling them what a great job he and his government have done in tackling the deficits; and now we have surpluses. He does not go to Fogo Island or Tilting, he does not go to Joe Batt's Arm or Shoal Bay or Deep Bay, he does not go to Virgin Arm, he does not go to Tizzard's Harbour, he does not got to Whales Gulch or Herring Neck or Twillingate or Durrell, and try and sell his Budget and tell them how great he is. He does not go to Quirpon or he does not go to Englee, he certainly does not go to La Scie or any of those places, and tell them what a great job he and his government are doing of controlling the deficits and raising taxes and raising every fee.

Mr. Chairman, if he goes he certainly does not drive over the roads in the Province, because I will guarantee you, unlike the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, who stood in the House of Assembly waxing eloquently there a few short weeks ago about the roads in her district - she said the roads in her district, and this might not be her exact words but it is pretty close. When they print Hansard, by the way, those speeches that are given in the nighttime are not printed until after the House of Assembly closes, and I cannot wait to get the copy of her words because I am sending them to everyone in her district. I am sending them to everyone in her district, because in talking about road work in her district she said that the only person in her district, right now, who was complaining about the condition of the roads was, guess who? Guess who? Not the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, not the Member for Port de Grave, not me who drives out there once in a while because I am from that area and I love to drive - and she is well familiar with the term - around the belt, because that is what we used to call it. You would leave Carbonear, go down to Bay de Verde and you would go up through Brownsdale and that area and come back and cut across the Heart's Content Barrens, back through Victoria and into Carbonear. Now, that is a portion of her district. Do you know who she said the only person in that area was who is complaining about the road conditions, because everything was so good?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No? Her mechanic. He feels as lonely now as the Maytag Repairman. Her mechanic is complaining about the road conditions because the road conditions are so good that she no longer needs to bring her car in for repairs.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. REID: Are you serious, Mr. Chairman? Sure, I was only getting started. Can I have a minute's leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. REID: That is all right, Mr. Chairman, I understand I can come back again later in the evening.

But, just imagine the gall. We are talking about gall tonight, that is going to be the word. Imagine the gall of the member, how she can stand in this House of Assembly and say on television - because there are people watching her in her own district - the roads in her district are so good that only her mechanic is worried about the condition of the road because she is not getting anymore repairs on the struts on her car or the shocks, or her tires are not being replaced and he is losing money because the roads are so good. Well, I say to the Member for Trinity- Bay de Verde, if you have roads like that they are the only roads in the Province because I will guarantee you, the great City of St. John's do not have roads like that and all you have to do is drive up Portugal Cove Road on your way home tonight. They do not have roads like that. So, I guess you are taking your car to somewhere in St. John's, I say to the member opposite. You must be taking it in here for repairs because you can certainly do a lot of damage on your way to where you live in this city or just outside the city. If you do not do damage on your car in Northern Bay or Western Bay or Old Perlican, or if you do not do damage on your car up the other side of your district you have not driven them very often.

Mr. Chairman, I have a whole list of items that I want to talk about tonight as to how this government could spend all their newfound wealth and how he can spend his tobacco tax. I will be back in a few minutes after we give another individual an opportunity to speak.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not really want to talk about the roads in Trinity-Bay de Verde. I will leave that to the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

I was interested in the figure provided by the Leader of the Opposition that this measure is expected to raise an additional $9 million in revenue. What I would really like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, is what this $9 million is going to be used for. Is this something that even though the minister says is not designed to raise revenue, then is he prepared to make it revenue neutral and ensure that that $9 million is spent to provide additional services to people who are addicted to tobacco or who might become addicted to tobacco? Is he prepared to put that $9 million into supporting anti-tobacco measures for young people? Is he prepared to put that $9 million into making sure that the provincial drug program makes available the patch or whatever other remedy that a doctor may prescribe to an individual who is addicted to smoking tobacco? I think the Leader of the Opposition is right. I do not know whether it is one, two, or three but it is certainly up there with heroin, cocaine and other addictive properties in terms of being a strongly addictive substance.

I do not think that somebody suggests every now and then, like the tobacco companies - the only other one I ever heard this was the tobacco companies saying: If the government does not like it that much why don't they outlaw it? Then they go on to say that the governments are the partners in the tobacco industry. That is one of their newest lines. You can always tell when you hear the tobacco companies talk - they have their PR person come out and they have a whole series of carefully prepared lines. They are almost as good as some of the political parties, Mr. Chairman. They have it all opinion tested. They go out and they focus group this stuff. Their latest line is: I don't know why the governments are suing the tobacco companies, sure they are our partners in the industry. They, and we, go out and sell tobacco and collect revenue. So, why are they suing us? They are our partners. This is another of the lines that the tobacco companies will suggest as part of their attack on government suing them.

I want to say to the Minister of Finance, that this is, in a way, a little bit of a challenge to him because the minister has come forward and said: Look, this is not about revenue. We are not here to be partners in the tobacco business. We are not here to collect revenue off cigarettes. We are here increasing this because we believe it is an important measure. It is actually going to decrease the amount of smoking in our society. Well, if that is the case, Mr. Chairman, I will offer this challenge, that the $9 million they are seeking to collect by this measure, that you commit to using that - and your government commits to using that $9 million of additional revenue - not to fill the coffers, not to pay down the debt, not to support other programs, but, in fact, to be part of the challenge of assisting people who are addicted to tobacco from quitting, making sure there is money in the provincial drug program to allow people who have a need for this drug to help them with smoking when prescribed by a doctor.

In fact, the minister could go so far and say: Look, we are not only going to make it available to the people who have drug cards, Mr. Chairman, we are going to subsidize the availability of some of these measures so that even people who do not have a provincial drug card are going to have access to these measures because we believe that smoking is bad for your health, is bad for the health of our health care system, is bad for our economy, is bad for our young people, is bad for everything and we are going to collect an additional $9 million all right, but we are going to use that to assist the cause of helping people quit smoking; whether it be through counselling, and I do not know if counselling works. Hypnosis sometimes works. Counselling may work, hypnosis may work, the patch may work, whatever other measures are deemed to support people who want to quit smoking or to make the decision to quit smoking, well then I would like to see the minister, and I challenge the minister, if he wants to refute the charges of the drug company that he is their partner, that the governments are the partners of the tobacco companies in the business, that government revenues - that is part of the partnership, that is what they say. That is their latest line.

The tobacco companies will say there was a man here, the president of one of the companies - I do not know if it is Benson & Hedges or RJ Reynolds, one of these companies was here in St. John's a couple of weeks ago and that was his line. Obviously, a focus group, focus tested, opinion researched, all right down the line. They have an idea. There is a bit of a weakness here in the government's argument and they are pushing this around, saying: Well, the governments are our partners in the tobacco industry. They are our biggest partners. They collect a lot of revenue. We collect some revenue and the governments are our partners.

Well, if the Minister of Finance wants to respond to that inaction he will take that $9 million and he will say publicly here in this House that money is not here for revenue purposes, as he said in the Budget. That is what he said in the Budget: No, we are not collecting revenue. He said: This is not a revenue measure, this is a health care measure. Well, if it is a health care measure, use the money to help those who are addicted to tobacco to quit, use it to subsidize medications that are used by people who try to quit -

AN HON. MEMBER: But they are not doing it.

MR. HARRIS: They are not doing that, no. Use it to support whatever reference exists to help people who are suffering from that. What do they do instead? The same budget - and this is very interesting, and there was not much talk about this - gave a tax break to the operators of clubs and bars. I do not know if anybody noticed that. I am sure the club and bar owners noticed it, that there was a break. They no longer have to pay additional revenues on their liquor buys somehow or other to help make them a little bit more profitable in the face of the fact that smokers are not going to be able to smoke in their premises anymore.

Maybe, some time in the next few years, they will take out some of the machines. The machines that are keeping this Province with 300 or 400 more bars than we need. That is what we have been told by the former President of the Bar Owners' Association, saying that there are 200 or 300 more bars in Newfoundland and Labrador than can be justified by the level of business if it were not for VLTs. Now, what does the Minister of Finance do in the same budget where he raises the price of cigarettes? He actually lowers the tax on booze that are being bought by people who run bars to help make this industry profitable, to help subsidize - and I do not know how much money we are foregoing there, probably another $9 million. I have not seen the numbers.

Maybe the minister will be bold enough to tell us how much revenue he is foregoing to the bar owners at the same time he is collecting $9 million here on cigarette tobacco. Is that the $9 million that is going to the bar owners? I wonder. I wonder and I am wondering out loud, Mr. Chairman, because I am hoping that when the minister speaks on this bill here in committee that he will tell us. Maybe he will tell us. Maybe he will tell us whether the $9 million that he is getting from the increase in tobacco is what he is using, actually, to subsidize the bar owners. I do not know. I would prefer that he could stand in this House and say: Yes, we are collecting $9 million in revenue. Yes, we are not doing it for revenue purposes but for health purposes and we are using that $9 million by increasing the amount of money we are going to provide for anti-smoking initiatives. That is what I would like to hear him say, and I would be very interested in hearing any other member's comments on this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have made some progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee's report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, at last day when this piece of legislation was debated, my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, concluded his opening remarks on second reading. I believe now it is over to the Opposition to put their viewpoint on this important piece of legislation, a very good piece of legislation dealing with deadbeat parents, generally, for them to put their view forward.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Continuing debate on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words. I would say right off the top that I will certainly be voting ultimately in favour of this piece of legislation.

I listened to the Minister of Justice last Wednesday in second reading. He gave an overview, of course, of the purpose of this Bill 27 and what the intention was. In fact, he gave a pretty good history on Support Enforcement Orders in the Province. Some major legislation, of course, back in the 1988 era, 1988-1989 with Minister Lynn Verge at the time. In fact, the major overhauls in family law started as more recently as 1979, actually, when we had the Matrimonial Property Act which was I guess the first recognition in this Province of the changing norms in society when it comes to women's rights, martial rights, spousal rights and children's rights. Of course, then 1988 came and we had six or eight years experience then in the spinoffs of that earlier piece of legislation, the Matrimonial Property Act. Based upon that experience, there were some major overhauls again, which included the Support Enforcement Agency.

Just for those in the public who may not be aware of where this fits, I am sure anybody who has been through the divorce courts of our land, particularly those who had kids, they probably know firsthand what the purpose of this piece of legislation is. For those who do not know, of course, we have a system whereby if a marriage breaks down or if there is child support orders made by a court or even if they are made pursuant to a separation agreement without having been a contested matter, those orders get filed of course with our Support Enforcement Agency and it is set up on the West Coast, works at the Sir Richard Squires building. There is a director and a number of staff there. What we are dealing with here is a case where the decision has been made, for example, some spouse, the male or the female, have been ordered, the moms or the dads, and principally - the Government House Leader said deadbeat spouses but principally it is deadbeat dads that we are dealing with, usually. We might as well call a spade, a spade. Most of these enforcement orders, the vast percentage of them, are with respect to deadbeat dads.

The purpose of the legislation, of course, is to find ways that once the order is made - there is no point in having the order, because it is generally made in support of the children. There is no point in having the order if is just a scrap of paper and you cannot find a way to enforce it. Well, having practised law for twenty-seven years so far, and probably done 400 or 500 divorces myself and being party to this stuff, I can appreciate the difficulties that principally women have had in having their support orders enforced. I can assure you there are some pretty creative people out there, and whatever hook or crook or cranny they can find sometimes to beat the court order that you pay child support has been tried. Sometimes it is hiding your assets, sometimes it is keeping them in other peoples names. You get a car and you put it in someone's name rather than your own, you jump from one employer to another so that you cannot be traced, you leave the Province, you try to hide your income tax forms. You do not want anybody to know what your assets are. I can tell you, I have seen just about all, everything you can possibly imagine in twenty-seven years of practicing family law, people trying to hide their assets and not fulfill and live up to their responsibilities once the orders have been made.

That is what brings us to this Act, of course. Over time you find out what people do to avoid their responsibilities, and from time to time you have to go back and say: The Support Enforcement Agency that we created in 1988 is indeed a great creature, it serves a very worthwhile purpose, but it does not have all the teeth that it ought to have. That is what we have here, trying to find ways that we can put some more teeth into the Support Enforcement Agency, so that if someone has an order and they are required to pay and they are being evasive about it with the person to whom the order is against, let's find ways, and as many ways as we can, to make sure that they fulfill their obligations.

That, of course, is what a lot of the different sections that we have here deal with. For example, we can get at a person's income tax returns now. One time you could not get at them. Everybody pretty well gets an income tax refund of some kind, whether it is a GST rebate sometimes or an income tax refund. You had cases, many, many cases, where these people were getting their refunds and going off and spending them on what they wanted, but yet they owed thousands and thousands of dollars in our system to child support that they were not paying. I am aware of several cases, in fact, where it was up in the $30,000 to $40,000 range, where people had not paid for their kids' support which they ought to have paid. Despite everything they though it was their life's (inaudible) then to avoid the order. They were going to do everything in their power. They even quit their jobs so they would not have to pay it, as if by being spiteful towards their former spouse they were accomplishing something. Indeed, all they were accomplishing was hurting their own children, and that, of course, became secondary. Their principal concern was avoiding their responsibilities.

GST, HST, Canada Pension Plan, training allowances, we can get at those, will get at those. Of course, you can put liens on real property, but that is great if you know where the real property is and if it is in the name of the person who owes the money. Quite often, of course, these people are smart enough to make sure if they buy a piece of property, they do not buy it in their own name, they buy it in somebody else's name so they can avoid the attachment or the lien being placed against the property.

I notice the new Section here, 28. This is a very important one as well. Section 28 deals with joint bank accounts. You often have a case now, especially if there is a remarriage, where the spouse is remarried and with the new spouse they have a joint account. There could be x number of dollars in it, but yet the directors of Support Enforcement could not get at it because the other party always claimed: Well, that is my money, that is not his. He might owe $10,000 in child support, but that is a joint account in mine and his name, you cannot touch that, that is my money. Now what happens, and of course what used to happen, practically, was, if you became aware of the existence of the account and you went and told the director and the director went into the bank and said, we want to attach that bank account, the bank would say: Well, I am sorry that is a joint account. The bank would probably notify the account holders that, the director of Support Enforcement has been in inquiring about your account, and lo and behold the account was cleaned out. Then, what is the point of having found it, if the person, once they are made aware of it, cleans it out? You are no further ahead.

Under this new rule now, the Support Enforcement will attach the bank account. That is it, nothing comes out of it, right there frozen as of then. Now, if the account holders want to say that is not his money that is all my money, it is up to them to make an application to the court to show that it is their money, which is putting the onus, I submit, where it ought to be. Why should they just willy-nilly clean out their bank accounts whenever they wish and put it in some other bank. Then, you have to go through all that trouble again of finding out where the bank account is because of these evasive maneuvers. So that is good to see. Fifty per cent of it will be frozen right there, right on the spot. So that is great.

Pensions: You often had a problem, of course, where a person accumulated a pension. They might have been living common law with someone else or are remarried and the argument always comes up, well, yeah I owed child support, but that is a pension that I have and now my new spouse is going to be entitled to that or whatever, especially if the person had accumulated the pension and it is what they were calling an idle pension. In other words, it was not being drawn on right yet because the person might be gone into another vocation, for example, and that pension is there accumulated but not yet being drawn upon. The argument was always made you could not touch it. Here was the person's kids not getting their just desserts, the mother not getting the child support as she was entitled to receive for the children, and yet this asset over there that, generally hubby, was trying to say you cannot get at anyway. That is going to be changed now. That is another way that this Act is very, very beneficial.

Of course, under the new Act now, I notice as well section 53 which deals with the suspension of drivers' licences. This, I think, is going to be very, very beneficial, because if deadbeat dad now tries not to pay but you know dad has a licence in this Province, you are going to be able to apply to the Director of Support Enforcement to suspend his driver's licence. There are certain privileges you are entitled to in this Province, one of which is to have a driver's licence, but you also have responsibilities under your court orders. If you are not going to fulfill your responsibilities under one, for example to the Director of Support Enforcement and fulfill your obligations for child support, you do not deserve to have that privilege of driving anymore. Unless you pay up, we are going to suspend your driver's licence. Now, I think that one is going to get some very immediate reaction, very immediate, because persons who find themselves in that situation, particularly if they have a job that requires their driver's licence in order to do the job - all of a sudden you have someone who needs their driver's licence. Now it is a case of not only are they being evasive anymore vis-B-vis the child support, but they are not going to get any income. You probably will still see people who will cut off their nose to spite their face, and even if they are going to lose their job because they are going to get their driver's licence suspended because they did not pay their child support, they are going to do it. There are some people out there who are foolish enough to go do that. At least now the tool will be there that the Support Enforcement Agency can use to try to, at least, collect.

I notice, as well, Sections 54 and 55 go a little bit further, and that is it will permit for the suspension or cancellation of hunting licences. Now, I do not know, that might lead to an increase in the incidents of poaching, but at lease for some people who are law-abiding, who do hunt and do have a hunting licence, if you do not pay now under this new Act you can get your hunting privileges suspended or cancelled. That is great. Whatever you can do to give this Support Enforcement Agency teeth to make sure that the people pay their support obligations, the better.

MR. HARRIS: The status of outlaw.

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: Given the status of outlaw.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. According to the Leader of the NDP here, you are given the status of outlaw. You cannot drive and you cannot hunt and you are not going to be able to do very much. I suggest to the Leader of the NDP there is a very simple solution to that, fulfill your obligations and pay your child support payments and then you have a clean conscience and your kids are looked after and you do not have to worry about being called anything other than an honourable dad instead of a deadbeat dad.

Now, I notice there is a very unique provision here too, Section 56. I was hoping that the Minister of Justice - I am sure he will when we get to Committee stage - will relate to us the particular circumstances which led to the creation of Section 56 because it will enable the director of child support to garnish from Atlantic Lottery Corporation the lottery winnings of a debtor in arrears where those winnings were valued at $1,000 or more. Now, that is a pretty specific and a pretty unique circumstance, to allow somebody to attach your winnings in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. Great stuff! I am just wondering if there was some particular circumstance that brought that about. I would be interested in knowing, just curious: Was there some winner of Atlantic Lottery Corporation where someone tried to recover against the winnings and were not able to do it? That would be nice to know. The only flaw I see here is, I do not know why the $1,000 minimum. I do not understand. Yes, it has to over $1,000 before you can go get it. I firmly believe that any winnings - I do not think it should have a $1,000 minimum. Maybe there is an administrative issue here, that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation does not want to fool with it if it is less than $1,000, but really I do not think we should be handicapping ourselves in saying, you have to be more than a $1,000 winner. The only winners in this should be the children, and whether dad won $500 or $1,000 he should be subject to having it attached if indeed he does win.

The other comment I would like to make on the bill - and I think this was a brain stroke here - is on Section 65 which deals with the limitation period. Previously, we had a circumstance whereby after ten years, if you did not do anything against the deadbeat, you could not recover the money. There was a ten-year limitation period. Now that is being removed here, and so it should be, because there are lots of cases when this child support obligation starts when the kids are of a very tender age. They could be three, four or five years old. For the next ten years dad takes off to Alberta or BC or wherever and you cannot find him. You get $30,000 or $40,000 worth of debts built up and all of a sudden ten years have passed and he is off the hook. Regardless of when you actually recover, I firmly believe that whenever the money becomes due and payable and it gets in the hands of the mother, usually, who uses it for the benefit of the children, she should get it. That is why I fully endorse removing the limitation period of ten years which existed in the Act.

I would comment, as well, that not only are we now changing the Act so that the teeth of the Support Enforcement Agency and the opportunities they have to better enforce these court orders will be vastly improved with this bill, but I have to say hats off to the people who actually in the Support Enforcement Agency. That office is situated in Corner Brook, and I can say I have had hundreds of dealings with the staff there over the years. They are truly dedicated to making sure that people who are entitled to get their money get their money. They go to great lengths to try to identify the assets of a debtor and to try to recover the money. It has been very frustrating sometimes when you know they have gone the distance and they have walked the walk on behalf of the creditor only to find out that the legislation under which they work did not have the legislative authority and the teeth that it needed for them to complete the process that they wanted to do. I say hats off to the Support Enforcement Agency staff, and the director in particular, who is very genuinely and sincerely concerned about being able to do their job properly, and congratulations to government for having taken these concerns which, no doubt, over a course of time have come from a number of groups in this Province. There have been womens' groups, there have been the Status of Womens' Councils from around the Province, there have been Legal Aid lawyers, there has been the Law Society of Newfoundland, there have been lawyers involved in the practice of family law, who have brought these suggestions forward to show what the deficiencies have been over the years. As a culmination of all of these deficiencies we now see this Act, which will no doubt vastly improve the collection abilities of the Support Enforcement Agency.

Without further ado, I can certainly say we would have no objection in supporting this piece of legislation whatsoever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders. As the previous speaker has just said, the Opposition House Leader, this is not about getting orders for support, it is about once you get them from the court - which is not necessarily a very straightforward process - actually enforcing them. In fact, a lot of people are deterred from seeking family law resolutions because their spouses, or husbands I should say - in almost all cases it is the husbands who are being chased for family support, whether it be spousal support or child support - are told by their husbands: You won't get a cent.

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, I still hear cases - and these are not necessarily people who have no money. These could be people with millions of dollars. When they decide that their marriage is over they treat their spouse as if they are some sort of a pariah; not entitled to a cent, cut off. As I say, these cases come to mind all the time. I know very prominent citizens in this town who treat their wife as if she is not entitled to anything, despite twenty-five years of marriage and raising three or four children.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will name him. He is not sitting in this House.

This is the kind of thing that never ceases to amaze me, Mr. Speaker, that someone can be in a situation where they are married to someone for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years and all of a sudden, in the case of a marital break-up, they are prepared to treat their spouse like dirt and do everything they can to make their life miserable. I do not understand it, Mr. Speaker, but that is not what we are here for today, not to understand it, but in fact to try and ensure that something is done about it. That if there are orders obtained by a court, that the means are developed to enforce those orders.

This piece of legislation has about eighty-seven different sections in it. A couple of dozen of them are probably related to matters that are administrative in nature, but every single other provision is here for a reason. It is here because some process that did not have this section did not work. Someone was able to avoid paying orders that they were lawfully required to make, did not pay them, and somehow or other the law was inadequate to go after them. The law was inadequate to provide the support for children that the order of the court requires.

We are talking about, in many cases, not even necessarily a lot of money, but the money that allows a spouse who is left behind, for whatever reason - it does not have to be the husband running off or whatever. The fact of the matter is that when children are involved as part of a matrimonial break-up, whether it be common law or otherwise, that those children are entitled to support from both parents, depending on their means. There are formulas for that and there are courts for deciding all that, but this is beyond that. This is for the court to determine what a reasonable amount of support is, and that is based on family income. It is based on all the circumstances. It is based on the living conditions of both spouses and based on the ability of the spouse against whom the order is made, based on their ability to pay.

So, these are not cases, Mr. Speaker, of going after someone who does not have the means to pay. In fact, one of the sections of the act says that there is a presumption that the person against whom a support order is made has the ability to pay. Now, why is that, Mr. Speaker? Section 60, "In proceedings brought under this Act, the debtor..." - this is the person who is supposed to pay the money - "...the debtor is presumed to have the ability to pay the arrears and to make subsequent payments under the support order." In other words, once the order is made the presumption is there - it may be a rebuttable presumption. You may be able to take an application to set aside the order but you cannot just say: I haven't got the money. That is not a reason. It is not an excuse. You cannot just say to the Sheriff who comes knocking on your door with an order to enforce: I don't have the money. If you are subject of an order for enforcement it is up to you to go to the court and get that order set aside or else this legislation and that order should be enforced, and that is the way it should be, Mr. Speaker. That is the way it should be because otherwise nobody could afford to pay. That would be the answer to any (inaudible) proceeding. That would be the answer to any attempt to collect money by just, do not have it.

Well, the reality is that far too many people who have orders against them go out of their way to hide their assets, to hide them in numbered companies, to hide them in companies belonging to somebody else, to buy automobiles in someone else's name, to operate companies through their friends or through other relatives. All sorts of means and mechanisms have been used and that is what has given rise to each and every one of the provisions that are designed here to ensure that there are opportunities to collect that money.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker who was admitted to the Bar on the same day I was, some twenty-five years ago, expressed a great deal of experience in family law, much more than I have had. I did certainly practice family law for the first seven, eight or ten years of my practice but I have not practiced family law in a long number of years. I do know from what experience I have had, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult to collect these things and I am very glad to see that the Director of Support Enforcement is the one who is there to collect that money on behalf of individuals because the director is not a partizan, the director is not involved. You file your order with the Director of Support Enforcement and that person and that office in Corner Brook takes on the task of enforcing that order. It is not easy to do and you do needs an arm's-length organization to do that in many circumstances.

Now, there have been problems with the Support Enforcement Agency over the years, some of which have been bureaucratic, some of which have been resources, some of which have been access to information and finding out what is going on, but efforts have been made over the years to improve that to the point where I have not heard many complaints, and maybe it is because I do not practice in the area of family law, or have not practiced in the area of family law for some fifteen years. There may well be some problems with the Support Enforcement Agency, but that is not what we are here to debate today. We are here to determine whether this legislation, the new enforcement proceedings should be supported by this House. On behalf of my colleague from Labrador West and I, we want to say that we do fully support and endorse the increase in measures to attack the problem of - deadbeat dads is the popular phrase, but people who do not fulfil their obligations to their spouses, obligations to their children under the Family Law Act, the divorce act and other matters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one part of this that I do have to - I want to say, initially when this was first raised as a measure, I have to say I spoke out against it, and that was the provision when decisions were being made to bring about legislation that would take away someone's driver's licence. That if you were in arrears in your support payments that you lose your driver's licence, or in this case going even further and saying you cannot have a hunting licence. My initial gut reaction to that was that was wrong. That the right to drive a vehicle or the ability to drive a vehicle, that was something separate on the part for someone's obligations under another part of the law. I spoke out against it because I thought that was depriving someone of the ability to make a livelihood, you take away their licence, they cannot get to work and various other measures.

I have given this a lot of thought, Mr. Speaker, over the last - it is probably a year or two since I have made those comments. I have given it some thought and I have looked carefully at the way this is approached in this legislation. It is not an automatic thing. You cannot just file your order with the Director of Support Enforcement and have someone lose their licence. That is not the way it works. There are a number of steps that have to be taken before we come to that. That is considered to be, in the parlance of the act, something like a last resort. It does not use that language, but in order for the Director of Support Enforcement to get to the point of removing someone's licence, or having them to cancel or refuse a driver's licence, there must be a number of conditions met. I will go through them, Mr. Speaker, because I know there are probably people in this Province who feel the same way I do, that there is a very extreme measure to say to somebody that you cannot drive a car because you have not paid your spousal support. That is an extreme measure, but in a lot of people's minds there is not a connection between the two.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, there was somebody saying today that you could not put someone in jail for not paying their tickets. That is another discussion. In fact, I have a lot of problem with that too.

Let me just review the provisions here that talk about when and under what circumstances a Director of Support Enforcement has the means to have a driver's licence cancelled or suspended or a refusal to renew in place. First of all, the debtor - and the debtor here is the person who has not paid their support order. The person is in default under support order filed with the director. So there has to be a default, but that is not enough.

Secondly, there must be a case of what is called persistent arrears. Now, persistent arrears means that the defaulting amount is at a certain sum that is going to be set in the regulations. The minister did not talk about that in his speech. Hopefully, if we get someone from the government to respond to these remarks, they will tell us what the ministry has in mind. Is it going to be $2,000, is it going to be $5,000, is it going to be $10,000? But, persistent arrears in a certain number of payments over a period of time and an amount to be determined by the regulations. In other words, a person is not just anybody who missed a payment. I do not want people to think that as a result of this legislation, if for whatever reason you change jobs, move your bank account, something happens and your payment of $200 to your children through the Support Enforcement Agency does not get out of your bank account because your bank account is no longer there, that you are going to lose your driver's licence the next week. It is not going to happen. That is not the purpose here. The purpose is to treat this as a last resort.

The third condition is that in the opinion of the director all reasonable steps have been taken to enforce the support order. Yes, it is left to the opinion of the director but the director obviously has to be satisfied that all other reasonable steps have been taken to enforce the source of the court order. This clearly means that it is regarded as a last resort. That it cannot be referred to, or it cannot be acted upon unless all reasonable steps have been taken to enforce the support order, which clearly means it is a last resort.

Fourthly, there has to be a thirty-day period - referred to in another subsection - that must have elapsed. Before directing the registrar of motor vehicles to take that action, the director must notify the individual that unless he makes an arrangement satisfactory to the director within thirty days of the notification to comply, the director shall direct the registrar of motor vehicles to suspend, cancel or refuse to renew the driver's licence of the debtor.

In other words, there has to be four conditions met. There has to be a default; there has to be persistent arrears; there has to be all other reasonable steps taken; there has to be a notice, and there has to be thirty days elapsed from the notice in which a person is given time to make some arrangements to pay the support.

Mr. Speaker, under those guidelines and under those procedures, and treating it as a last resort, I can support it. I can support that because it is not something that happens arbitrarily. It is not something that happens automatically. It is not something that happens just because you missed a particular payment for whatever reason, which may or may not be, or even may be under your control. You have to be persistent in your willingness to avoid your responsibilities, all other reasonable steps have to have failed and you have to receive notice.

Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I am told that in other provinces where this exists, that this kind of notice gets people who all of a sudden did not have any assets, all of a sudden they are able to pay their arrears because they know about where the money is and other people do not. That is something that I think is a tool that is there. It is a last resort. It is something that obviously is not going to be used everyday, but I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, the reason that is there is because the Director of Support Enforcement is aware of cases where that is the only thing that is going to work. Where they are at the end of their rope, where they have tried everything else, where they have tried to find assets, where they have tried and spent a lot of resources going after people and they have not been successful. I think that is an important tool, as a last resort, to do that.

I am not sure why big game hunting is there. I guess there probably are some people in the Province - I am not one of them, but there probably are some people in the Province to whom the taking away of the big game hunting licence is an important deterrent and would cause them to come forward with their arrears. I know the new Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, he is probably not a big game hunter himself. I don't know, maybe he can tell us whether or not he thinks his constituents will be deterred by the fact that they might lose their moose licence and be prompted to pay their support enforcement arrears. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are people for whom that is a very important deterrent. Again, as a last resort, that is there to ensure that those who maybe do not have a car, but they do have something that is important to them that the Province confers on them not as a right but as a privilege, to hunt big game through a license, the same as from time to time driving a motor vehicle is considered to be a privilege - Mr. Speaker, obviously in this day and age, personal transportation of motor vehicles, drivers' licences is obviously a pretty important part of people's everyday life. I would suspect that is a much heavier hammer and a more significant deterrent than losing a big game license. I am pleased to see that even thought this is an extreme measure, it is part of the arsenal, a tool that can be used by the director soon to support the enforcement of support orders, and I would like to see that happen.

Now there is one aspect of this that I find a little bit distasteful, and that is where support orders are actually sought by the government or enforced by the government to collect in lieu of getting payments from income support. Quite often a condition of income support is that a person seek a support order from the court and have it enforced through the Director of Support Enforcement, and often this has caused a lot of friction between families, and, in fact, made children and spouses no better off then they were before, because they were losing dollar for dollar. For every dollar that was collected in spousal support or child support, they were losing a dollar from social assistance or from income support.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think everybody knows there was also a little bit of informal activity going on where a spouse, the parent of the children, would provide some in-kind support to a child in certain circumstances even through there was no formal order in place, but once the formal order was put in place then all of that stopped, and in fact people who were in receipt of support orders that were forced on them by the Department of Social Services or the later Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment in fact were worse off because of a support order than they were before. That is something that I think a lot of people have grappled with, Mr. Speaker, because people on income support are at very, very low levels of income, and to say that they cannot get any advantage from receiving support orders in these poor circumstances is not a very good thing.

I do not think that is what this bill is about. I mention it because I think it is an issue for a lot of people who are on Income Support, who are forced to get support orders that do not do them any good causing lots of animosity between the spouses that is unnecessary, particularly in small communities. There is a need to have an effective support enforcement mechanism and I support the efforts of the Director of Support Enforcement and the Ministry of Justice in modernizing this legislation, giving the tools that are necessary to achieve a greater degree of payment and enforcement of support orders, both for spouses, women 99 per cent of the time, and the children 100 per cent of the time, of course, the innocent children who parents have a legal obligation as well as a moral obligation to support within their means. This legislation is designed not to determine what the means are, that is decided by the court, but once those means are determined, once the presumption of Section 60 is in effect, if there is an ability to pay, then we have an effective means of supporting it and ensuring that the enforcement takes place. I want to support this legislation here at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise and have a few comments on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders.

I think the amendments in this Act are quite appropriate, and anyone who has dealt with clients of support enforcement in the Province - and I have through my constituency office on many occasions and also through other individuals in the Province, and I can tell you that just because the court issues an order that there must be support paid to a spouse who is the major caregiver for the children of the family, it does not mean that these court orders are always honoured or that they are always paid. I have certainly, in my time here as a member, run into many cases where this has been the case. I can tell you that there is a need for more enforcement and for more measures to be implemented.

I think, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi outlined already, while there have been some enforcement measures in the Act prior to this they have not been nearly enough and there was definitely a need to strengthen this. I know there may be some debate as to whether you are infringing upon the rights of certain individuals, when you are getting into things like suspending drivers' licences, suspending hunting licences, garnering their bank accounts, garnering their pensions and so on. Then again, Mr. Speaker, I think it is the right of individuals to support their families and support their children when they are in the financial position to do so.

When these people go to court to look for child support payments, those payments are determined based upon the income and the ability of individuals to pay. All of those things are taken into consideration. There is no compromising of any particular standard of living when these court orders are issued for support payment. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is always looked at based upon the ability to pay and it is also looked at based upon the income levels that each of the parents has.

I know that quite often the Support Enforcement piece is more labeled towards males in our society, but I guess that is probably more myth than anything else because there are also women out there who pay child support who do not always pay the benefits that is ordered to them by the court as well. It does not matter if you are male or if you are female, you have a responsibility in society to provide for your children and to provide for your families. So, if it means bringing in tougher legislation to do so, then that needs to happen.

There are a number of cases where people have been ordered to pay child support to their children, to their wife and children, in particular in the cases that I know of, that have went on for months and months and months, and in some cases well over a year, with no support payment whatsoever, although there was an order from the court that they were to be paid. These people did not have a shift in income. Their income levels were the same as when the court made the order. It was just a clear refusal of not to pay the benefit, and for whatever reason that was - because, for me, I just cannot find any justification why someone would not want to pay support benefits to their children to ensure that they are clothed and fed properly and housed properly in society with their main caregiver. So I have no idea why they would not pay it, but I do know that it has went in excess of a year without any payments. It left the individual that was caring for the children - the spouse of the person who was supposed to be paying - with very little options only to go and look to whatever other measures that might be there. Although there were measures in place where they could garnish property or have some revenues accrued to them from the sales of property, but how often would that occur? Very, very seldom. So that was not always a really efficient mechanism to recover support payments, but some of the mechanisms that are here now are going to be a little bit more reasonable.

When you look at pension entitlement, when you look at being able to garnish RRSPs, when you look at the fact that some of these individuals may have shares or ownership in companies, or own companies themselves, well now the companies can indeed be liable for some of the income support payments that are supposed to be made to the family. I think that all of these are important, Mr. Speaker, and they are not going to be done just at a whim. There is a process, and the legislation outlines a process whereby this can be done. Just because there is a person who is supposed to pay income support payments and refuses to do so, it does not mean that they are automatically going to lose their driver's licence, but it is something that can happen if they continue to violate the court order that has been issued to them. I think that is only appropriate. I really feel it is only appropriate, Mr. Speaker.

The only real problem that I still have with the support enforcement in the Province is: How do we get after the people who move outside the Province? It is still a huge issue. I have dealt with a number of cases where there have been court orders issued to an individual to pay child support, but then they leave the Province. They go to Alberta or they go to Ontario or they go to some other province in Canada and they do not pay their child support. Our legislation does not allow us to be able to go after those individuals anywhere else in the country, other than in our own Province. I still have a problem with that and I have made my views known to the current Minister of Justice when he introduced the bill into the Legislature. He did assure me that he would be raising it with the federal Minister of Justice as an issue because I think he, himself, has had this issue brought forward to him before I approached him on it, but it is still an issue in this Province and it is happening all the time.

I have had two cases of recent where there have been mothers of children who are not able to collect their income support and they have no ability to collect it because the spouses who are supposed to be paying it are living in Alberta, and because they are living in another Province they are not able to garnish them in the same way that they can if they are in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we have to deal with that because I know of only those two cases that I have dealt with, but I am sure there are many others out there as well where the same thing is happening. So, while there is a process where they can file through the Province of Alberta or through the Province of Ontario to be able to garnish the wages of the individual while they are in that province, it is a long process. As you know, a lot of people in our Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are transient workers. They often out-migrate to one province or another for a period of six to eight months, or even up to a year, and quite often they will come back home again for a period of time. So, being able to go through another province's legislation to garnish their wages or to collect the income support that is due to them and their children, it is very, very difficult because of the timing of the process and it does not always work out the way that they want.

If there was one other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would have liked to have seen in this legislation it would have been the ways and means to be able to collect income support from those who are ordered to pay it by the courts, regardless of what Province in Canada they may be working in today or tomorrow. That is an issue and it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Maybe it is more appropriately addressed through the federal Department of Justice. The Justice Minister did undertake to give me a commitment that he would raise that issue when he met with the federal minister.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I definitely support this bill. I think it is definitely needed in the Province today. I think that once you have a responsibility to pay and you have a court order to pay support payments to your children and to your spouse, then you should indeed do so. If you find yourself in a position that you are unable to, well then there is a process that you can go through, back through the courts and to re-file, because changes in your income may be different.

Mr. Speaker, once the court order is issued, it is issued based upon their income and their ability to pay at the time. There is absolutely no excuse why they should not be paying those support payments. I think whatever mechanism is necessary to enforce it, it needs to be done. What is really sad, Mr. Speaker, is that it is this Legislature which has to ensure that money is paid out to clothe and feed and shelter these children when their parents, no matter what side they are on, has the financial ability to do it and refuses to pay. That is what is sad.

In the absence of that, Mr. Speaker, whatever amendments that can be made to ensure that these payments are delivered to the children who need it, based on the court orders that are issued, it needs to happen. I think this is a good piece of legislation and I am pleased to support it.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few moments to speak to Bill 27 with regard to, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders put forward by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I know probably everything that can be said has been said about this bill. I want to assure you that I stand in support of this bill as well. We know in the present legislation, and also in the new legislation, that there are different avenues where people can be approached to try to get the funds to help support their children and their families, such as garnishing and attaching one's salary, their bank accounts, seizing land and properties. Mr. Speaker, I guess the difficult part about it is that when the court order is given, on many occasions the difficulty is finding the individual. I have had cases in my district, Mr. Speaker, where that has been very difficult and have gone on year after year without any support coming forward. It is very difficult for those families, when a husband leaves and moves away to the Mainland, for them to just track him down and try to make contact and let him know there is an order in place.

Mr. Speaker, the Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook - I think some of the other speakers mentioned the staff there. I am sure there are times when they are very frustrated when they are working on behalf of clients in this Province and they find it very difficult to track down the people so that the court orders can be adhered to. I noticed the minister in his comments the other day - that agency has collected, since their inception, over $200 million, and I thought he said $22.5 million in 2005. That agency is playing a very vital part, Mr. Speaker.

A lot of the people step forward and they pay their supports with very little difficulty, but others will do whatever is possible, I guess, to skate around without paying their obligations willingly. I had once case, Mr. Speaker, a constituent who had to take legal action, and it was very difficult for that family just to go into a court setting. If I am not mistaken, it was somewhere between twelve and fifteen years before they received five cents from the individual. They had a very difficult time dealing with that in the court, Mr. Speaker. This new legislation, no doubt about it, has some of the strictest enforcements probably throughout our country, and I have ever reason to believe in a great many incidents it will help people who are needing this support.

One thing I want to mention: I have known cases since been involved in the political arena where people had their social assistance stopped for a period of time because they did not step forward to enforce the court actions, to really get after the individual at fault. I guess the reason they did that is because they knew the difficulty was to try to track them down, but once their benefits were discontinued they had to step up to the plate.

Mr. Speaker, I know some of the legislation and I am glad to see that there is protection there for the debtor as well, because many times we know rather than just jump and go to Motor Vehicle Registration to take away the licence without some consideration for that individual - that might be their only means of going to work, and trying to be honest and above board, to come up with the money for the support, Mr. Speaker.

Those are the only comments that I want to make to it, to say I believe, like other members on this side, that this is no doubt a good piece of legislation, because anything that can be done to enforce the laws for our children and families in this Province who are hurting, I can assure you, we are in total support of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the government, I want to thank colleagues on the other side of the House for their support for this piece of legislation. It is good legislation, I think, as practically all speakers have pointed out. It goes a long way to being probably some of the toughest legislation you will find in any jurisdiction in the country.

There were some comments raised by colleagues from the other side that I will attempt to respond to. The Opposition House Leader raised the question of the $1,000 Atlantic Lotto winnings. I have been told, Mr. Speaker, that the reason why it is $1,000, from an administrative perspective, is that if it is $1,000 or more then the winning is paid out by Atlantic Lotto. If it is $200, for example, and you bought the ticket at Irving, you can go into Irving and get your $200, and you cannot get your hands on it. From an Atlantic Lotto perspective, it is the $1,000 and up that this legislation is directed towards.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Mr. Speaker, raised some questions as well. I can assure him that the intention is to define persistent arrears in regulations. The definition will be three-months arrears in payments or $1,000, which ever is less. That will be the definition of persistent arrears. It is based on the federal definition, but we are proposing to reduce the amount. The amount in the federal definition is $3,000 and we are proposing to reduce the amount to $1,000 in our regulations. That will be the definition of persistent.

I understand the comments made by my friend from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in terms of reciprocal arrangements throughout the Province and throughout the country. That is difficult. I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, has in fact undertaken to raise that issue with the federal minister. That is, in fact, where the minister is today and I believe tomorrow, in Ottawa doing those things. It would be much easier and more effective if there was a federal strategy here that would eliminate the necessity for each province to work out a reciprocal arrangement with each other province. That can be very, very difficult for people who do not want to pay. It can be very difficult tracking them down, finding out where they are, and putting the orders in place. That would be much easier if it were a system federally that applied to all of the country.

Based on those remarks, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House the Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement of Support Orders, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Enforcement of Support Orders, Bill 27.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, " An Act Respecting The Enforcement of Support Orders," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 27)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the matters related to Bill 27.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 27.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Committee stage debate on Bill 27.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee is about ready to hear debate on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement of Support Orders.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not want to have a prolonged debate on this, and I do not know if the Deputy Premier, who I appreciate is speaking on behalf of the minister who is not able to be here, is able to answer these questions, but I would like to take the opportunity to find out what the minister knows about the issues in dealing with other jurisdictions. I know there were some problems a number of years ago that seem to be resolved by some federal legislation making changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow information to be made available so that support enforcement bodies would know when someone was in receipt of unemployment insurance, and obviously information from Revenue Canada, in terms of source deductions, could help to identify where a person was. For example, as my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair indicated, if someone was living in Alberta you might not know where they are or what their address is. Information held principally by the Government of Canada, in terms of the Canada Revenue Agency, would be information that could be available and useful to the Director of Support Enforcement and to the spouse in actually finding an address.

A lot of the provisions of this Act and a lot of the actions of the director, if one looks at the detail of the Act, depend on notice. You have to give notice to the person who is in default, you have to serve papers on them, you have to identify assets, and all of those kinds of things many times depend on actually finding them. You know that your spouse is gone or you heard from one of your friends that your spouse is gone to Alberta, but you do not know whether he is in Red Deer or Fort McMurray or Fort St. John in British Columbia, or somewhere in the oil patch that you cannot find, and you have no way of serving any documents on them. Provisions of this Act and other similar types of legislation that call for notice on the person on whom you are trying to enforce this order are useless unless you can find out where they are.

I am wondering, have those efforts or the use of those data bases or sources of information been successful? To what extent has the new emphasis on the privacy legislation, both at the provincial and the federal level, to what extent has the emphasis on privacy and the new Privacy Act had on making it more difficult, in fact, for people like the Director of Support Enforcement to get the kind of information that they need in order to be able to actually give notice to people, to find out where they are to do these kind of garnishees that are provided for, which are most often necessary to collect these support order payments, if someone, particularly, has left the Province?

As we all know - and I am not making this as a political point, it is a fact of life - very many people in this Province have left the Province to seek work, and I would submit it is a pretty good bet that people whose marriages have broken up are potentially more likely to leave the Province and go elsewhere seeking work, and potentially try to avoid their responsibilities at the same time. Have we been successful in using these federal databases to obtain this information, and has this been impeded by the new privacy legislation brought in by the feds, and of course that the Province is subject to in the absence of our own legislation?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I am having officials check this matter for me now. I cannot address whether or not the federal Privacy Act has been an impediment. I do not know the answer to that, but I will undertake to find out and let the hon. gentleman know. With other databases, like Revenue Canada, Employment Insurance and things of that nature, there has been progress made in accessing those databases for support order enforcement. Of course, a regime, as I said to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that has some federal regulatory regime about it, that would apply all across the country, or some standard that would apply all across the country, would make it a better system. We will have to see how the Minister of Justice and Attorney General makes out with his federal counterpart on that particular issue.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2 to 87.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 87 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 87 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 87 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 27 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: 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: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 27 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, with leave.

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 27 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 Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders 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 Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, motion 1. I move the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco. (Bill 6)

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.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to continue debate on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act and the resolution that accompanies Bill 6.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just spend a few minutes to talk on the bill. As we see, and from the Minister of Finance, this is a bill that is going up to $9 million. Always a question that arises: What are you going to do with the $9 million? Is it going to be used for help with addictions or prevention or education on health, or lack of smoking for teenagers? That is one of the questions that we just do not know.

Teen smoking is a major concern for all of us. I know, I have a nephew that was just in here last week, who is in on a seminar on smoking. It is an issue throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that we are all concerned about. How do you stop it? I am not sure of the answers. I know one thing, education is a big part of it. The issue of teen smoking is something - I have been fortunate, I never did smoke. A lot of my friends around me growing up, we all played sports and none of us smoked. So, we are all pretty fortunate that we never got addicted to tobacco. I know a lot of our youth at the time did get addicted. Even now, a lot of them are still smoking because of the addictive nature of tobacco.

We had an all-party committee here, probably back in 2000-2001. It was an issue that we had with the big tobacco companies and we were holding hearings. One of the big issues was: How do you prevent teen smoking? If you do not get at it at a young age then you do not get addicted. It is an issue that we all tried to come up with but yet, there is no one - I don't think - who has the right answers on how it is done. One of the biggest suggestions was to start the education in the school system. Once you start the education in the school system you have an opportunity - and even at a younger age, when we were back in our day, if you were fourteen, fifteen or sixteen you would be able to pool your money together, go buy a cigarette and everybody had a few puffs. Even now, it is like most things, they get younger and younger so you have to start at a much younger age on the education of the problems with smoking and the addictions.

Mr. Chairman, I am just going to spend a few minutes because as we all know this is a money bill. When we talk about the $9 million in taxes that is going to come in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Extra.

MR. JOYCE: Extra. Oh yes, no, no. That is $9 million extra, over and above with this tax increase that was brought in, in this year's Budget. That is over and above the normal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: One hundred and twenty-five million dollars total in cigarettes. Well, this $9 million is over and above with the new tax revenues that are coming in.

Last year, Mr. Chairman - about two years ago now, we seen the great, as I call it, the great steal of Newfoundland and Labrador with the increase in taxes. Everything, every tax possible, we had an increase in. I remember one of the increases that we had was with car registration. It went from $140 to $180, I think, at the time; $120 to $140 to $180. I know the minister at the time, now he is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, was out saying: Oh, yes, we are going to put the money back into roads.

Mr. Chairman, I have to bring up the roads because I know the Member for Port au Port was out criticizing me against the Budget. He was out criticizing that I did not vote for the Budget. Let me tell you why I did not vote for the Budget. I will just give you another reason why I did not vote for the Budget. I will say to the Member for Port au Port, I was here when the Budget was taking place, were you? Then go out in Corner Brook and get someone to do up a press release, go and send it out, and say: Oh, Eddie Joyce voted against the Budget. How dare he vote against health care? He voted against this, voted against - at least I was here in the House of Assembly speaking my mind, more than I can say for the Member for Port au Port. At least I was here.

Then you talk about -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: He did it. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, you were the one last year out with $140, an increase from $120 to $140 for the roads, going to be put into roads. I say to the minister, when you were the Minister of Transportation and Works, why I did not vote for the Budget. I will give you a good example of why I did not vote for the Budget. Do you remember last year the road to McIver's? Mr. Chairman, this road was extremely dangerous. It took me four months for that minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture now, finally when he got embarrassed, he got totally embarrassed, he finally realized that letters were written. He got on Open Line saying he did not know anything about it. It was never brought to his attention. I was not doing my job, but when he finally got the confirmation slips that the letters were sent to his department, that he received them, he wrote me a letter of apology saying that I should have sent them to him that morning so he would not have had to do what he did. So, I should be doing his job also.

To get back to the point on the road in McIver's and the Budget. That road then, they went out, they got three or four of the workers from highways to go and dig it up, put down some topsoil, and put down a bit of work. I said then, I went on Open Line and I said publicly, that road is not fixed properly. That road will falter again. Guess what, Mr. Chairman? Guess what? That road from McIver's out there is dangerous again. It is extremely dangerous. I spoke to the current Minister of Transportation and Works on it. I wrote him three times. That minister has yet to respond when I wrote him three times asking for a meeting to discuss transportation issues in the Bay of Islands - three times. Unlike the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, not like him. Give that man credit. At least he stands up, he returns your calls, he sits down. You may not get what you want, that is fine. That is one part of it, but at least give the minister credit. He sits down, he goes through the issues with you. Some you win, some you lose, that is just part of it. Anything major, anything on health concerns, he addresses it. Give him credit. There are several other ministers over there also, give them credit. Anything with health concerns, anything major, the environment concerns, give them credit. They do respond to it.

This current Minister of Transportation and Works, I wrote him three times looking for a meeting. Do you know how much money was spent in the Bay of Islands? The Member for Port au Port will love to hear this. In the Bay of Islands in the last three years on roads, I will just give you an example now. I would say, excluding last year, the rush job that was done on McIver's - I would say, this year included, $10,000 in the last three years. I will tell you the safety concern that is going to happen. I am going to do this. Please God, I will not have to, but I am going to do this. With the nineteen layoffs for the summer maintenance, the gabion baskets down on Halfway Point and from Blow Me Down Brook out to York Harbour, the gabion baskets have been destroyed in a lot of places. The rock in behind the gabion baskets are filled up. The rocks are coming down and going over.

I will tell you what is after happening this spring, this spring alone - this is a serious issue. This is why the minister here, I just find that he is out of touch with reality. He is playing politics with people's lives and I make no bones about saying it. Twice this year there were boulders in the middle of the road, where cars were driving by and hit the boulders. The minister knows because I wrote the minister on their behalf trying to get the damage paid for their car. The rocks were so big they had to get heavy equipment to move them off the road, and the gabion baskets are still down there destroyed. So, you wonder why I never voted for a Budget in putting safety behind politics? You want to know why I never did. You take McIver's, McIver's is another prime example - and I will say it here in this House right now, if anybody gets hurt on that road I will be the first one to say that the minister is well aware of it.

Down on Blow Me Down stretch and Halfway Point stretch, when another rock comes down over that road and if it hits another car or if someone swerves to the right or the left to miss a car and goes over the bank, I will be the first one to say the minister is well aware of it. There is absolutely no way that he can say that he is not well aware of the dangerous situation of the roads in the Bay of Islands. Then you say, oh, it is only me playing politics with it. Ask the six mayors who wrote the minister, ask them. I do not mind politics. Politics is a part of this. We are all grown men and women in here. We can all handle politics. I have no problem with that.

I had the Member for Baie Verte - when the Minister of Transportation and Works was up last week saying: Oh, look at politics when you were in the Opposition. I ask the Member for Baie Verte: How many times did I support you on the La Scie road for safety concerns? A lot of times I did, and I make no bones about it. I had to fight with some of my own colleagues because I knew the safety concerns on La Scie road. You take politics aside and you bring safety upfront, that is what you do. I even asked the minister, during the Estimates, come out and meet with the councils about salt and sanding. I am not going out there. I am not going to meet with them. This is the minister of a government whose public safety is supposed to take care of people in this Province and this minister will not even meet with the representatives. He will not go out and meet with any of the councils out there, but yet stands up in this House and says: Oh, look what you did to us when you were in government. Look at how much I never got.

The people in the Bay of Islands - I am telling you, this is a serious issue, folks. I am telling you, someone is going to get hurt out there. Someone is going to get hurt. The roads have been neglected so bad in the last three years, the gabion baskets - there are rocks, I am talking boulders, in the middle of the road.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands that his speaking time has lapsed.

MR. JOYCE: Just a minute to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I will be back on this issue again tonight because this is a serious issue. I will make no bones about it, please God, no one will ever get hurt, but I want to put the government on notice that this is a safety concern. This is not a luxury of saying that you should have a bit of blacktop to make everybody look good and get a few votes or smooth pavement. This is a safety concern when there are boulders coming off on a regular basis from the cliff going on the road. It is a major safety concern.

Going in to Halfway Point where there was water and sewer done last year, going in to Irishtown and Summerside, the beginning of Irishtown and Summerside, where water and sewer was completed last year, they are going to recap the road. The dip in the road, Mr. Chairman, the highways department in Corner Brook, right now, as we speak, are trying to find enough pavement to fill in - there is about an eight-inch dip in the road, right across the road. Someone can go off the road here, no problem whatsoever.

This is the strange part about it. They stand up and say: Oh, we do this. Why don't they release the recommendations from the depot in Deer Lake? Do you know why? Because most of that work is recommended for safety reasons; absolutely for safety reasons. The Member for Baie Verte knows very well - and I know if he was asked he would stand on his feet - how many times I supported the La Scie Highway for safety concerns. He knows it and I know it. There is a difference between politics and safety.

There are three or four sections in the Bay of Islands, I can assure you, that are a major safety concern; a major safety concern. This is not just trying to put a bit of blacktop over it. It is a major safety concern. I will get it done. It will be done. One way or the other, the work will be done because it has to be done. It has to be done! I can assure you, it has to be done. I can guarantee you. Because when you have residents over there and you have buses going over the dip in the McIver's Road, what is going to happen eventually is the road is going to be shut down. There will not be any -

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Pardon me? If the Member for St. John's Centre wants to say something, he can stand up. Do you want to stand up?

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: If you want to talk about the road out in Bay of Islands, take a drive out, boy.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Go out in the Bay of Islands, boy.

If the automobiles out there are shut down, Mr. Chairman, because of safety concerns - please God, no one will get hurt. Because, I can assure you, it is a safety concern. There are ministers over there, when there is a health or safety issue brought to their attention, who will deal it. To give them credit, they will deal with it. There are some, and the Minister of Transportation and Works is one who is neglecting his duties to do the work that is needed to provide safety to the people who are traveling in the Bay of Islands.

I can assure you, if and when, please God, it will never happen, but if someone gets hurt - because there have already been two accidents there with cars hitting boulders right out in the middle of the road, coming right off the mountain over the gabion baskets, because they are all beat up from the tractors this year, or bigger rocks coming down, not cleaned out on the inside because of the ninety people laid off, the summer maintenance - if someone does get hurt I will be the first one to say that the minister is well aware of the situation and he should have done something about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Early this evening, I was talking to this particular bill and I was talking about the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, about the great roads she talked about that she had in her district, and how she said that her mechanic was the only sad person in her district because he was not making any money off her, fixing her car.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, to get a little sidetracked here, I have to comment on some of the remarks that my colleague from the Bay of Islands made tonight when we talked about the backbenchers who sit back there behind the Cabinet Ministers on the government side of the House, who put press releases out, or somebody puts press releases out on their behalf, criticizing members over here for speaking against the Budget. Well, I can give you 9,000 reasons why I am speaking against the Budget, because there are 9,000 residents or voters in my district and I can give you a story about each of them. I want to talk about sending out those press releases, and I am not certain the members opposite were even aware that they were going out according to some of the comments.

The one that I find very strange and rather amusing came from the Member for Port au Port. He criticized the Member for Bay of Islands for voting against the Budget. I had to go then and look up in Hansard - that is a record of everything that is said and done including the votes on the Budget. I did a check on who was in the House that night. My colleague, the Member who represents Grand Falls-Windsor, was not in the House that night because she was attending a funeral up in Baie Verte area. I noticed that the individual who put the press release out condemning my colleague from the Bay of Islands for voting against the Budget was not even in the House himself that night to vote for the Budget.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he knows full well - and the Chair did not bring the former member to task because it passed over very quickly, but it seems it is going to continue. I am sure. I remind the hon. member that it is unparliamentary to refer to members whether they are in the House or not in the House. It is a long standing tradition of this parliament. So, I ask members to abide by those rules.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for that, but actually I thought that referred to the present when you are referring to a member not being in the House. I thought that you could mention if they were not here on a certain date in the past, but I will apologize anyway, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, that brought about a memory for me when I heard that individual that night, the press release he put out. It is an old hockey story that I heard growing up. I do not know if it is true or not, but it goes something like this. The ‘Rocket' Richard, after he was retired from hockey, did the game one night with Howie Meeker.

MR. SULLIVAN: He picked three stars.

MR. REID: Exactly. At the end of the night Howie Meeker asked the ‘Rocket' to pick the three stars.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: If the Minister of Finance would only stop, he might learn something, I say to the minister. He is yapping over there like - I do not know, I cannot say it.

Anyway, at the end of the hockey game when Howie Meeker asked the "Rocket' to pick the three stars, he said with his French-Canadian accent: For the first star, I pick my brother Henri. While he did not play tonight, he watched a good game. I think, Mr. Chair, that epitomizes what the Member for Port au Port got on with when he condemned my colleague from the Bay of Islands for not voting for the bill, when in actual fact he did not do it himself.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, to get back to the roads, not only in the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde's district but all over: I say to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, if her roads are in such great shape maybe she could put a word in for others in the Province whose roads are not in great share. I have the opportunity to travel the roads in this Province on a weekly basis and I can tell you, that if she has roads in her district that are so good that only her mechanic is complaining about it, maybe she will put in a word for the rest of us, like she did, for example, when her constituents from New Harbour were in here a few weeks ago complaining because they were not getting any work in their plant because the red fish that they wanted to process was being shipped out of the country for processing elsewhere.

We all know that the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, shortly after getting elected in 2003, made the comment to the media that she will be the next Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, the first one was just sworn in, the first new Tory Premier was just sworn in, and she wanted to be the next Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. The telling comment that she made regarding the striking workers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: The telling comment that she made, Mr. Chair, in front of the media just outside the door here, when discussing whether or not she agreed with the workers from the New Harbour plant and their need to go back to work, her quote, I think, went something like this: When you are an MHA in the House of Assembly, you have to think beyond your own district, you have to think of factors other than those which affect your own constituents. That is what she said. In other words, I cannot think about the people who want to go to work in the plant, I have to think about issues that are province-wide. I think, at that particular time she was more concerned about trying to get herself elected Premier than she was about looking after her own constituents.

I say to the member opposite, she is forgetting one very small point - it might look rather minuscule to her when she is looking at the Premier's job - that in order to become Premier she has to be elected herself. If she neglects her district, and neglects the people in her district, especially those involved in the fishery industry, as she did that day in front of the cameras, then her plight to become Premier might be short lived. That is what I say to the member opposite.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, to go back to the roads: When I was discussing the roads in rural Newfoundland and Labrador there just a few short weeks ago, before Easter or shortly after Easter, we were talking about conditions in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and how this government had forsaken the people out there. I was talking about roads in particular, when out of the backbenches opposite, on the government side, I heard the Member for St. John's North - when I was talking about how they are not spending money on roads in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - out of the back of the gallery that night came this voice saying: What about the Bifurcation Road? What about the Bifurcation Road, came the retort from the Member for St. John's North. He thought he was going to put me down over that because I was condemning him. He thought that was a legitimate argument, actually, a legitimate argument that they were indeed spending money in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Being a bayman myself, I always thought that St. John's ended at the Overpass, and that one used to be out there by the Crossroads, out by Chester Dawe's. The hon. Member for St. John's North obviously thinks that has shifted a bit to the east, because he actually believes that the Bifurcation Road is now out in the bay or somewhere in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when he made the comment: What about the $10 million that is being spent on the Bifurcation Road? In case the hon. member has not been out in the bay to visit the Bifurcation Road, I might add, that Bifurcation Road, for all of those who come to St. John's to visit the stores and do business in St. John's, that is the road up here on the new arterial road. It is east of the road that goes down to catch the Bell Island ferry. That road is going to join the arterial road up to Kenmount Road in St. John's so that those people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: That is one that has been up there now for the past year that you cannot drive on even though it is paved. They are going to spend $10 million on that so that the people living in the east end of St. John's can get to the new Home Depot faster than they could normally do it by driving up the Parkway and up Kenmount Road. I say to the members opposite, some of you are definitely going to have to get your directions straightened out and discover what really is rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because the Bifurcation Road certainly is not, in my estimation, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, still on the topic of roads: If you want to see roads all you have to do is go into any rural district in the Province. You can take mine, for example. I was delighted, I must say, when I drove down through Gander Bay last Friday night to go to a graduation in Twillingate - even though the Premier made reference today that I spent the weekend golfing. I will tell the Premier, there is no golf course in Twillingate, but if we had had our way there would have been one in Windmill Bight, I guarantee you that. There would have been one in Windmill Bight, but he saw fit to cancel. Anyway, what I noticed as we were going down through Gander Bay North was the fact that on certain stretches going down through Gander Bay North the pavement has been removed, taken up altogether. Actually, the road is in much better shape now with pavement gone then it was last week when I was down there or the week before, I say to the Member for Bonavista North.

Now, it is my understanding that you are going to pave some of those sections as you go through there. Maybe that came about as a result of the petition that was circulated through my district by his constituents. In my district there was a petition circulated. There were residents from his district who came over to mine, over in Northern Dame Bay, and asked that we sign a petition to support the member or to put some pressure on the member to try and get sections of Gander Bay road paved. The people in my district, in New World Island, Twillingate Island, Fogo Island and Change Island, go to Gander Bay road and up to Gander to shop in Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hub.

MR. REID: The hub, as the Member for Gander would to call it. Anyway, what I noticed is maybe the residents of my district have to take some credit for what is being done on the Gander Bay North road because they are the ones who signed the petition to wake the member who represents them up, and to put some pressure on government. By the way, I say to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, that road that goes down through Gander Bay was put down in about 1972. I am glad to see you found a very limited number of dollars-

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. REID: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

CHAIR: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by leave.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was certain you said no leave. I know that the Minister Responsible for Municipal Affairs said no leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Oops! I am sorry, maybe he did not, but one of your colleagues behind you. Maybe it was the Member for Bonavista North who did not want to hear the truth, and then he sits me down.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, what I would like to say is that we are very pleased in my district that some small sections in Gander Bay are going to be complete this year, I hope. It is just too bad that the whole stretch from Gander right down and including Victoria Cove is not going to be done, because, Sir, I guarantee you that is probably one of the worst roads in the Province. One of the worst! I have some of the worst in my own district, especially-

AN HON. MEMBER: It should have been done years ago.

MR. REID: The member can say when it should have been done. I will tell you when it was done last, when Joey Smallwood paved it in 1972. You had a Tory government for seventeen years that never paved it, so if you are talking about when it should have been done, I suggest that it should have been done under the Tory regime from 1972 to 1989.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I will back in a few minutes, because I know they are not going to give me leave for much longer. I will be back, and I have a number of other issues that I would like to raise tonight on this particular bill.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am just going to take a few moments. For those who may be watching, we are on a piece of legislation which really talks about amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act that gives government the ability to put greater taxes on tobacco. The Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech, talked about how that is the only tax increase we are leveling, not because we needed the revenue, not because we wanted the revenue, but part of the government strategy to increase the cost of cigarettes is to try to curb those people or people out there who would begin smoking. It is a deterrent, part of a deterrent overall, with respect to tobacco and the addiction that is causes with respect to smokers.

Having said that, people who may be watching tonight will notice that there are a number of topics that are being raised by a number of members, and that is certainly fine. Tradition and practice within the House has always left latitude on a bill or a finance bill to talk about whatever any individual member wants to talk about.

I would like to respond directly to the Member for Twillingate, the Leader of the Opposition, and his remarks about roads. He talked about the Member for Bonavista North's district, for example. He said, the last time the road was paved was when Joey Smallwood was there. He talked about, from 1972-1989 the Tories did nothing with it. He did not talk about from 1989 to 2003, when the former Deputy Premier and former Premier of the Province was in charge of the roads system and was the member there. What happened in that fifteen years, I would like to ask the member opposite?

Here is the truth, Mr. Chair. People in the Province need to come to understand the difference in terms of road budgets by this government and by former administrations. This year, for example, it is a little over $60 million. Now you compare that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second. You compare that -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yeah, there is a carry over from last year, I say to the Member for Bellevue, but the total money that will be spent this year will be about $60 million.

I recall one year in this Assembly when the total road budget by the Opposition when they were government was $6 million. When you wonder why the road system in Newfoundland and Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is true, I say to the member opposite.

MR. BARRETT: The Roads Program was (inaudible), it was $120 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, the Member for Bellevue certainly can get up and talk when he has his time. He talked about $120 million. That is federal money the member is talking about. I am talking about direct, provincial contribution to the road system in Newfoundland and Labrador, known as the Roads Program. One year it was $6 million. The year before the election I think it was $22. Even in the most difficult period that we faced as a government financially, which was the first year, we increased the Roads Program to $30 million. There was a reason for it. The infrastructure in the Province was in decay and is in decay. It is one of the reasons why we put in place a five-year strategy, infrastructure strategy, that is going to spend in excess of $350 to $360 million a year for that period of time.

Back to the roads budget: Here is the truth. Every member in this House who is looking for money for roads within their own districts, outside of municipalities who have agreements on multi-year arrangements with the Province and federal money, every member in this House will privately tell you that there is more money this year, last year and the year before in the Roads Program than any other year in the previous ten to fifteen. Every member will admit that. Every member has been over to see the Minister of Transportation and Works. To do what?

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Just for the record, I wrote the minister three times and he would not meet with me. So don't say every member has been over. I have tried. There are serious, dangerous situations out there. I have tried to get over to meet with him. This minister will not meet with me to discuss the safety concerns.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, every member - if he has not met with him, I am sorry. He has written him, he has asked questions in this House, he has talked about it here, but my point is this - the member missed the point - that every member would have to admit that there is three times the roads budget this year than when you were the government. That is a statement of fact, not opinion; by provincial contribution.

You can shake your head no, but the truth speaks for itself. Those are not my numbers, those are yours.

I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, when you were President of Treasury Board - let's go back. I can go back tonight. I will do this: Before this night is over I am going to go back to when you were President of Treasury Board in 1999 and take out the roads budget for that year, right from your own budget statement. When I finish right now I am going to go out to the Legislative library and do that. You shake your head what I am saying is no. I am going to come back and lay it on the Table for you. The fact is, you can squirm, you can talk about how much money is not going into it, but we have put a plan in place over five years to deal with roads work. We have put four times the amount of money into the provincial Roads Program as compared to what you did. We are trying to do the best we can with the resources that we have and increasing the allocation in the roads budget to do exactly that. Why? Because infrastructure enhancements are required.

Secondly, where is that roads money being spent? That money is being spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you know why it is being spent there? Because that is what has been neglected for the past fifteen years while you were in government. The Leader of the Opposition just said it. The last time a road was paved - I forget the area mentioned - in the Member for Bonavista North's District, he said, was when Smallwood did it. He neglected to talk about the fifteen years that, when they were in power, they did not do it, in a Liberal district, I might add. What is the beef? You can stand up and pontificate and deal with us and challenge us on issues, and fair enough, because that is the obligation that we all have here, to deal with what is as opposed to what isn't, but at the same time have the capacity to acknowledge that this government is putting four times the amount of money into rural road work than you did yourselves. Have the capacity to stand up and say: Yes, that is a move in the right direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for the Bay of Islands says it is not true. Sixty million dollars this year compared to $20 million when you put it in. That is three times. Sixty million dollars this year compared to a $6 million Roads Program several years ago.

The fact of the matter is this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter, Mr. Chair, is that the roads budget speaks for itself, what was done and acknowledged in budget statements compared to the Roads Program this year. The fact is that next year we will probably do the same thing. I know if the Minister of Transportation and Works were here-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I know if the Minister of Transportation and Works were here tonight -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to sit down, Mr. Chairman, and let the members work it out for themselves.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to hon. members on both sides of the House, that if they have private conversations, to shout from one side of the House to the other, I ask if they would take them outside. Members are standing and they are being recognized by the Chair, and I ask members to show their cooperation and understanding. That is why we sit here tonight, to debate budgets and to debate legislation. I ask all members to show some respect for the member who has been recognized by the Chair.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

The fact of the matter is this: With respect to the Roads Program, members will acknowledge that it is the best program and the most we have funded. To be frank about it, if the Minister of Transportation and Works were here right now - and I have the former minister and he can say if what I am about to say is true or not. Because there was such a small capacity and funding going into the Roads Program, contractors in this Province did not have the capacity to deal with a Roads Program that went beyond a certain amount. I believe we stretched it last year and we are stretching it again this year.

One of the benefits of a long-term plan, a five-year infrastructure plan, is that it tells the business community that we are committed to a certain amount over the next five years. This is what they are saying. It gives them the opportunity to gear up in terms of equipment and infrastructure and bodies to plan their businesses over a long period of time, as apposed to waiting each and every year like they did under the former government. What is the roads program going to be this year? Is it going to be $12 million? Is it going to be $6 million? Is it going to be $18 million? The fact of the matter is we have laid out that plan. All of that plan is in place. The business community that deals with road construction and the Road Builders Association has the opportunity to plan and prosecute their business based upon the commitment that we gave them in terms of what will be spent in the roads budget.

It is fair enough to say, as members, that more work needs to be done in your district. I know in one member's district - we have talked about the Member for Bonavista North - if we were to fix every problem in that district alone this year we would need $30 million; just one area. To fix every problem in the Member for Bay of Islands district probably -

MR. SHELLEY: Thirty-five million in mine.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty-five million in the District for Baie Verte.

There is no capacity to fix every problem immediately in one year. To suggest otherwise would be a flight of fancy in my view, and I think most members would agree. Yes we could do with more, yes we do need more, but please acknowledge, I say to members, that when it comes to the roads budget this year in Newfoundland and Labrador it is amongst the highest, and higher than fifteen consecutive budgets that members opposite brought forward with respect to road budgets.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is interesting commentary for sure. I too want to speak to Bill 6. I did not have an opportunity to finish my debate this evening before we broke for supper.

It is interesting, when I hear the Minister of Natural Resources, the Government House Leader, talk about the Roads Program. I acknowledge that there is a substantial amount of money being spent on roads this year, but there is no reason why I should have to stand here until I am blue in the face, day after day after day, and petition the government and the Minister of Transportation and Works when I have a valid argument, when I have a very valid argument, as to why you are not doing anything on the Buchans Highway. I am not asking you to do the entire highway.

I can tell you, when I was a Minister of the Crown during our time in government, that highway was in excellent shape, but you cannot leave a highway like that. It has been three years. You cannot leave a highway like that for three years without any maintenance. You cannot leave a highway that is on its own, isolated, 100 kilometres, without any maintenance. It goes through the roughest kind of weather. You know, there is a lot of snow, there is a lot of frost, there is a lot of rain on the Buchans Highway, and to compound matters - you know, the government should be quite happy that they are deriving an income from the construction phase of the mill in Millertown, Duck Pond and also the barite plant, but they are not acknowledging that at all. This is the beef that I have with this government. There is no reason for us to get up here, until we are blue in the faces, looking for money for road work in rural parts of our districts, and to be snubbed day after day as if it were PC money only that is going to look after the people of this Province. The revenue that is in the Treasury of this Province belongs to every man, woman and child in our Province. It does not belong to just the PC government. You are representing all the taxpayers of our Province and you have an obligation, when it comes to safety concerns and economic viability of a particular area, you have a responsibility, to address road conditions.

It is easy for you to stand up in your place tonight and criticize us for not spending enough money on roads, but I look at the Finance Minister directly across from me, and I can tell you we heard his demands day after day after day for health care and we responded.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and look what we have done, $100 million this year.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: We responded to the point that we ran a deficit, a severe deficit, to look after the health and welfare of our citizens of this Province. That came first. Now you cannot criticize us for not spending enough because you can only spend what you have, but when it comes to the health of individuals we spent more.

I think what I am criticizing tonight is the determination as to how you actually spend that money. You have to acknowledge there are certain parts of the Province that may not be Tory districts that have great concerns for the life and health and safety of people traveling over those roads. You cannot shut out these people. They all pay their taxes to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and you have a moral and you have a financial obligation.

Now, it is all about integrity. I hope when the time comes for me to leave this House of Assembly I will leave just like I came in here, with my integrity intact and of good character. I will not besmirch anyone's character or integrity to try and get a place in Cabinet or wherever, but I had two individuals from my part of the district, from Central Newfoundland, try to besmirch my character a week ago. It did not come out on the official Web site of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. It did not come out on the government Web site of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was someone who sat in their house. Paula Hayes Butt, who decided to sit in her own house and send out a fax saying that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans voted against the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Like my colleague just said, I was not here that night. I was attending a funeral. For someone to stoop that low - I know politics is a blood sport, but for someone to stoop that low and put out a news release on a plain sheet of paper and say that I voted against the Budget, I was voting against the cancer clinic, I was voting about anything that was good. Now, I would like to say to the people who are here in this House, and anyone who might be watching, my job is the Finance critic. I gave this government plenty of credit for social issues. When they did good I gave them credit. Anyone who knows me will agree with that, but I cannot agree with someone trying to tarnish my record and besmirch my character so low down.

Now, if I were here in this House I do not know how I would have voted, and you do not know that either because I was not here.

MR. SULLIVAN: You voted against the Social Services Estimates on health care.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Listen, Mr. Finance Minister, when you are a Finance critic you are not going to cherry-pick one or two items out of the Budget. You are going to vote for all or nothing. Now my job as the Finance critic is to outline the shortcomings of this government. If you are going to have a good government, you need a good Opposition that keeps you on the straight and narrow.

I tell you, I will not tarnish anyone's image, I will not tarnish anyone's character and I will not take away their integrity because I am not that low down. I am not that type of an individual, but for someone to try to do that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did it?

MS THISTLE: It was the Member for Windsor-Springdale and the Member for Exploits, but to do that is the lowest of the low.

MR. JOYCE: The president sent out the press release.

MS THISTLE: That was the President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that would be equal to me asking Tom Lush to send out a press release on an issue -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Exploits on a point of order.

MR. FORSEY: My name was just brought up there by the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans saying that I made a report or a press release where I said that she voted against the Budget. Well, I said she would not support the Budget and the reasons why I said she would not support the Budget was on a number of statements that she made. However, the one statement that she did make was on May 1 when we voted on Concurrence which included the social services spending, which included the Department of Health, and there was $900,000 in that Budget for that cancer centre in Grand Falls.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: She had a chance on May 1, Mr. Chair, to vote -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if there is a point of order, if he would get to it now.

MR. FORSEY: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that she voted against the Concurrence motion. When she voted against that motion she opposed all spending in that department. I did not say, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: As I knew already, there was no point of order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the member, if he does not know, it is time for him to learn the rules of the House and - you just cannot cherry-pick. You are either voting for the Budget or you are not voting for the Budget. So, if you are going to speak on a point of order it is time for you to know the workings of the House.

Madam Chair, this money which is going to be collected in tobacco tax is $9 million alone just for this year, and not the whole amount. This is just an increase. By adding on an increase to cigarettes and tobacco this government will collect $9 million extra. In other words, we have a total of $125 million in tobacco tax revenue alone. Not only that, in lottery tickets they will collect another $97 million and in liquor sales $101 million, for a total of $323 million.

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Leave, Madam Chairperson?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: Just to clue up.

CHAIR: Just to clue up.

MS THISTLE: Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Government House Leader.

I want to say, that it is one thing to collect new revenue, and there is nothing wrong with collecting new revenue as long as you decide to spend it in a manner that will be fair and will be equal to all. You also had an opportunity to provide help for those addicted to tobacco, liquor and lottery tickets and you neglected to do that, put in a small portion, $1 million out of about $30 million. You did not address addiction.

When it comes to the Province's roads, you have a moral obligation to look after all people in this Province. For that reason, I say you are shirking your duties.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The member stands up and talks about what we should be doing. We are spending $550 million more this year than last year, going up close to $1billion more than they spent on services in this Province. They spent $6 million on roads and are asking us, why aren't we paving roads. We are spending $6 million alone on a provincial Roads Program, the total road program, $142 million. One hundred and seventy five million dollars invested in infrastructure in Labrador, a $60 million direct investment this year and a $175 million commitment overall in infrastructure. The member did stand in this House, because I was in this House when we brought the Estimates for Health and Education under Social Services back to this House in Concurrence. We all stood in this House and we were counted whether we agreed with the spending on health care. That included $900 million to complete the cancer clinic for this year's portion in Grand Falls-Windsor. It was in the Estimates there that were brought to this House. That Member for Grand Falls-Buchans stood and voted against it in a division of this House. She did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Madam Chairperson, I think the Minister of Finance is being selective in what he is saying in this House. The Concurrence -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order, Madam Chair.

MS THISTLE: You let the Chairperson decide whether it is a point of order. You let the Chairperson decide!

Madam Chairperson, the Finance Minister spoke about one part only of the Budget. The Budget was almost $5 billion. He spoke about one segment of the Budget.

I was one of the ones, with many others, who fought tooth and nail for that cancer clinic and everything that is in Grand Falls-Windsor. Taking selective text and selective passages out of the Budget is totally wrong.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Being selective or not, we have brought to this House - and there are things in this House that you might have voted for or against, but I can tell you I was in my seat here in this House when we voted and called for division to stand, whether we agreed with the spending in Health and Education, and there was $900,000 in this Budget for your district for the cancer clinic that you fought for in Grand Falls-Windsor, and you stood and voted against that on a concurrence debate here in this House. I was in this House when you did. I am not being selective, I am stating the fact that is on the public record of this House and on the record of this Province.

You talk about lottery revenues: $197 million this year -

MS THISTLE: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: - as a government -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: She is wasting my time, Madam Chair. I did not interrupt her. Ask her to sit down and stop interrupting and let me finish.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: She cannot take it.

MS THISTLE: I would suggest you listen to the Table. The Chairperson of this House decides who is going to stand on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: I could have stood when you were up and corrected you and I did not.

MS THISTLE: Yes. Well, can you tell me and can you tell this House and can you tell the people of the Province: Did anybody in the history of the country, while you were the Opposition, vote for the Budget of the government? Tell me. Stand on your feet and tell me, will you. You cannot and neither can the federal government. There is nobody in the history of the country -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I was not around when this Province began the history. I cannot go back in history and tell you who voted on everything in the House, but I do know, and the record will show, what you voted on in the Estimates, and that is in the public record of this House.

Then she stands and talks about lottery revenues, $97 million we are taking in, in lottery revenues. What are you doing? They took in $114 million in lottery revenues. We have cut that by $20 million. That is what we are doing. We are cutting back lottery revenues in our Province more than they did. What are we doing? We are spending $180 million more on health care in our Province to deliver service all over the Province that you, as a government, neglected to bring in when you were in power.

We are spending $60 million on provincial roads. There are going to be more roads paved in this Province and infrastructure in the next six year, a $2 billion program, than you spent in fourteen and a half years in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You had money enough to pay somebody $22,000 to write a speech to deliver on a flatbed in Labrador, $135,000 for a public relations event, and you did not have any money to fix a few pot holes on the Buchans Highway. Is that what you are telling us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You had the most expensive public relation campaigns, in the millions of dollars, and you could not pave a road in your own district when you were minister, and now asking us to pave something you would not do when you were minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: She is waving the flag, Madam Chair. She is surrendering, I think. It seems to be white in colour to me.

MS THISTLE: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Madam Chair, I am afraid our Minister of Finance is going to have a heart attack, and he hasn't got the paramedics to look after him.

I can tell the Minister of Finance, while I was a Minister of the Crown the Buchans Highway was perfect. You did not have to worry about a pothole; not a pothole.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, what I find so galling is that people spent fourteen-and-a-half years in government, some of them for the last several years, and they have the nerve and the audacity to stand up here and talk about fixing potholes in a road, when they spent $6 million in an entire year and we are spending $142 million on roads in our Province this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: She should be ashamed that she fought, and came up and shook our hand at a news conference when it was over, about doing a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, and stands up in this House to vote against the Concurrence on putting money out in her district. That, to me, is not playing the game. I am not being selective, you are being selective in what you want to support. That is an absolute abdication of your responsibilities and commitments to people, if that is the game you want to play on it.

Now we have spent more money in education, $100 million this year; $180 more million in health care; $550 million more in the Province this year than last year; 212 direct jobs created in the public service alone in this year's Budget, not counting the hundreds that are created out in health care and education fields in this Budget. One of the largest increases in numbers of public service employees, probably in the history of our Province, in any one single year, and you stand up and complain you do not have enough.

I have said it before, that you could give people the moon, you could give them the sky, and they want the stars, they want it all, because they know it is not realistic. One billion dollars you put us in debt. You had money for everything you wanted to get re-elected, you had money for public relations announcements, we were inundated with that, but no money to fix potholes. That is the type of government you ran, one that was not responsible, one that did not live up to responsibilities. That is why you are in a problem. That is why people kicked you out of office. They do not want you back in office, and the polls are showing that, because you did not do the job that you should have done. You mismanaged people's money, you ran us into debt -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and you passed our Province's debt on to our children and grandchildren and asked them then to pay off our bills that you created. Then you complained, you complained about our Premier when he went out to try to get an Accord for this Province.

One of things they said in the campaign - and I remember it very clearly - when we put out our Blue Book, they laughed and said: Blue Book! Sure, part of that is getting a commitment out of the federal government. You have no control over that. What is the single thing that turned us around in this Province? The commitment we got out of the federal government that put profits in our pockets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Atlantic Accord turned it around, because we can now keep what money we are getting. Without the $500 million extra we are spending, we would not have been able to do that. We would not have been able to pave the roads. We would not have been able to have dialysis all over the Province. We would not have been able to have the cancer clinic in Grand Falls and Gander. We would not do an extension in Gander, the one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Lab West, and all of these other things. The Trans-Labrador Highway has been completed out of provincial money now, not out of federal money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Why? Because you spent it and you wasted it on things you should not have, and that is part of the reason there was not enough there. There would not have been enough anyway, because you did not extract enough. The $340 million you got from the federal government in that deal was not enough to finish the job, and still you squandered it and wasted it and used it for all types of things partially related. That money was going to run the ferry service to Labrador forever. It was going to run it forever! What now? There is no money left. We are subsidizing $20 million a year forever. We have to finish the roads out of public funds. Spent it all!

The very same government said: What else can we do? The South Coast ferry service in the early 1990s, they took $55 million from the federal government, and the interest on this will run the ferry service forever. In two years it was gone. Absolutely gone! They were even so audacious as to say: How can we get more money? They asked the federal government to advance to us twenty years payment up-front on Term 29. They took twenty years of payment -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. -

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? We gave her leave and she interrupted me three times, so I would like to have leave to finish my comments..

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. REID: Thirty seconds.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty seconds.

I am not sure if I can tell all your sins in thirty seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They took twenty years of money, $160 million. They took $130 million up-front and spent it all, and now we have to wait for twenty years to get -

MR. E. BYRNE: In one year.

MR. SULLIVAN: They spent it over three years. They spent it in three. They spent so much and drove us so deep down, they could not get us down fast enough in one year. It had to take them three to get us down there. That is what they did.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is numerous others.

MADAM CHAIR: He has withdrawn leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Withdrawn leave? Okay. They do not like to hear the truth. They always have a problem dealing with the truth, because they (inaudible) so much telling us the other side of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Madam Chair, what a rant. What a rant! I suggest that maybe the Minister of Finance should go out by the door for a smoke, and if he has not got one I am sure the Member for Bellevue will give him one, so he will not have to pay the taxes on them. That is what I say to the member opposite. That is what the Minister of Finance should do, because he has frightening small children who are watching this House tonight.

Now, Madam Chair, first, before I start into my speech - because my next topic is going to be on highway depots - but before I do that I want to make some comments on those comments that were made by the Opposition House Leader when he got up here just then and talked about how we only spent $6 million on road work.

MR. PARSONS: The Government House Leader.

MR. REID: The Government House Leader. How we only spent $6 million on highways when we were in government. That might have been one year, but we spent much more than that in most of the years that we were in government.

What I say to the members opposite, the government members, is: How soon they forget. Because all the while we were in government, day after day after day in this House of Assembly, we had a petition from the Member for Bonavista South. Now that he sits in the Chair most of the day - I asked him earlier today if he gets the urge ever now and then to jump up from the chair and present a petition, he gave so many on the road conditions in that area. To listen to the members opposite tonight - you cannot have it both ways, I say to the Minister of Finance. While his colleague, the Member for Bonavista South, was standing asking government for money to build roads in his district, the Minister of Finance when he was over here as the Finance Critic was yelling and screaming and bawling about how we were spending the Province into debt. So, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be asking on one hand and then criticizing for spending it into debt on the other hand.

I am glad the Minister of Finance mentioned tonight why he is able to spend the money that we did not have when we were in government. He did tonight, he admitted it. Because they struck a deal on the Atlantic Accord, because they got a commitment out of the federal government. They find themselves - and he said it - in a position now that they have been richer than any government since Confederation. He is talking, bragging, about the amount of money that he is spending on road work. I say, shame on you that you are not spending more. That is what I say to you, shame on you that you are not spending more. There are many, many, many roads, as anyone who drives any further than the overpass here would realize. You do not even need to go to the overpass, just look around St. John's. When you go up Portugal Cove Road on your way home for supper, tell me that the roads are perfect in this city too. They are not, I say to the minister. If you have all that money that you do not know what to do with, and you are talking about spending all the money on highways, maybe you could even spend some in here along with every other road in the Province. Do not stand up there and lecture us about what you are doing and what we did not do, because you and your colleagues when you sat over here in Opposition were every day bawling and screaming, on one hand, that we were not spending enough money, and then two seconds later jumping up and criticizing us for spending too much. You cannot have it both ways.

If you want to talk about something tonight that you can spend with all this newfound wealth, let's talk about highway depots and what you are doing to the people, not only in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but what you are doing to the100 families that you just gave layoff notices to. That is what I say to the Minister of Finance, let's talk about the 100 families that you just gave layoff notices to May 1, sending them home for the next six months because you are closing thirteen highway depots in this Province.

Where are they located? I will guarantee they are not located in the White Hills here in St. John's, they are not in Mount Pearl and they are not in Corner Brook. Where are those highway depots located? I can tell you where one of them is. It is on New World Island in my own district. You are laying off seven individuals there this summer. You are going to save $1.2 million by closing thirteen highway depots in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where we have out-migration, the likes of which we have never seen before - never seen! Not even in the days of the moratorium have we seen it.

Every single time you turn on CBC radio or television today you are hearing, out-migration. In fact, on the Fisheries Broadcast, I say to the Minister of Finance, this afternoon at five minutes to six they said: One of the hardest hit areas in this Province for out-migration is your own district; your district. There is no one left up there. That is what they were saying. They were saying it is leaking population through out-migration faster than you could leak water from a basket. Those were the words that the commentator on the CBC Fisheries Broadcast said this afternoon at five minutes to six. And you have the gall to stand up here and talk about all you are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the people. I say to the minister, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Let's talk about the 100 families that you just gave layoff slips to, some of them very young with school children. You told them to go home, some of whom have worked, the older ones, in those depots for twenty and twenty-five years and are waiting to get a pension. What you have just done is you have doubled the number of years that they have to work. You, personally, have doubled the number of years that they have to work in order to receive their pension, because they are only working a half a year now instead of a whole year. They have to wonder if they can survive on six months working and six months on EI. In one light they are the lucky ones, because at least they have six months work, unlike their neighbours in some of these rural communities that I represent. You are saying to those people: Go home out of it. We are going to save $70,000 on this depot this summer and we are going to put it into materials; $70,000 or $80,000 per depot. You should be ashamed to say that you are going to ruin the lives of seven families because you are trying to save $70,000, and later this year you will be doing make-work programs.

You are going to save $70,000 per depot in fourteen rural communities, and you are going to spend more this summer on a Premier's conference in St. John's and Corner Brook than it is going to cost to keep those depots open. Is that the reason you had to cut them, I ask the Minister of Finance? If you want to talk about that -

MR. SULLIVAN: If he wants me to answer a question, I will answer it, Madam Chair.

MR. REID: Madam Chair, he has lots of time to answer a question. He can stay here until tomorrow morning, and ten for ten I will go with him. I will go with you, my son, until the cows come home. That is a phrase your Premier likes to use. If you want to stand here tonight and debate me, you will get your ten minutes when I am finished.

Madam Chair, I am asking: Why are they doing it? To save $70,000.

When I talked to the Minister of Fisheries -

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The member raised a point. This government indicated that, unlike the former government who kept workers on with no materials and raided the materials budget, this government said: We are going to lay off seasonal workers and we are going to use the money on materials so we can repair the shoulders of our roads and do the necessary work that is needed in maintenance. That is what is happening. You are going to see some results happening. Last year it all got used up in salaries. The former government shut down twenty-four depots when they were in authority and we just ‘seasonalized' a dozen depots, not shut down twenty-four like they did.

It is important that the facts get on the table and not be distorted like the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is putting here on the floor of this House. Absolutely false! He does not know what he is talking about. Absolutely out to lunch on that issue.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Madam Chair, he can have his ten minutes because you are going to sit me down in a couple of minutes and he can get up into a rant for the next ten. That is what I am saying. Let him, he does not need to interrupt me.

He is talking about the highway depots that were open with no materials. I asked the minister: For the last thirty or forty or fifty years in this House, who did the summer maintenance on the highways? Who fixed the potholes on the sides of the roads? Who repaired the signs? Who cleaned the culverts in rural communities? Today there is no one working in my district doing that. That is what I say to the minister, because you chose to close those depots down to save $70,000 each, and here is the Premier's conference, the ten premiers coming here this summer, and you are going to spend $1.4 million to show them this Province, to fly them from here to Corner Brook and back again. It is supposed to be great for tourism. Well, maybe it is, but buddy I tell you one thing, I would much rather if you spent that $1.4 million putting the workers back that you just laid off in the depots in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Madam Chair, I am going to sit down and he can rant and rave all he likes, because I am going to stand up as soon as he sits down and speak for another ten minutes.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I find it somewhat amusing. The Leader of the Opposition stands to his feet and the first words he says are accusing my colleague, the Minister of Finance, of a rant and roar. What did we just hear? Eight or ten minutes of just blabbering and much more roaring than ranting.

Madam Chair, the whole point of this discussion is to talk about Bill 6. I find it somewhat ironic when I heard the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say, how soon they forget, in reference to my colleague from Bonavista South in talking about the petitions he used to present in this House representing his constituents in asking for road work.

Members opposite, how soon they forget. Thirty-four short months ago, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said: We are tired of it, we have had fifteen years, we do not want it anymore, we want some real leadership and we want some real direction. Thirty-four short months ago that is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for, I say. Tonight, all we have heard from the Opposition is what this government is not doing, and the things we are doing we are not doing enough of, and we are doing it in the wrong districts. They are accusing us of picking districts that are represented by members of this side of the House and that is where we were spending the money. All those sorts of things that they are talking about tonight are the exact same things that the members on that side of the House actually did. They actually did those very things they are accusing us of thirty-four short months ago. The people of this Province said, at that time, we have had enough, we do not want it any more, we want a change.

All you need to do, Madam Chair, is pick up a daily paper, any time at all within the last couple of weeks. Look at last week's Wednesday edition of The Telegram. It said: The Liberals - Liberal world and la-la land. Leadership, rudderless, unpopular and lame. The list of descriptions goes on and on and on.

Madam Chair, they stand here today in this House with the unmitigated gall to criticize this government for having provided some sound leadership in the last thirty-four months. For many, many years the people of this Province suffered - I say suffered! - under the leadership of members opposite. Here we are today, finally with the Province back on and even keel, and they stand on the other side of the House and criticize as if nothing is happening in this Province.

They talk about out-migration, as if it is a new phenomenon. All you need to do is look at the stats from the early 1990s when they were in power; out-migration numbers of 10,000, 12,000, 8,000 and 9,000 a year moving out of this Province. We had an eight or ten year history of that happening in their rein, but they stand here tonight and talk about out-migration as if it is a new phenomenon. They introduced it to the Province, I say. The members opposite are the ones who introduced out-migration to this Province.

When we look at a budget like we see this year, Madam Chair - just look at the Budget Highlights. In every single area, whether we are talking about health care, major investment and infrastructure, cancer research centres, dialysis, long-term care facilities - and the list goes on. Look at our education system: building new schools, reinvesting in capital, keeping teachers in our schools. Our social programs: poverty reduction strategies, violence prevention strategies. I say, Madam Chair, finally the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are seeing what it is like to experience real leadership and a real sense of direction. Finally we have our Budget under control.

When the Leader of the Opposition stands and tries to suggest that the only reason we are where we are today, with the success that we now have, is because we struck a deal with the federal government, he is only a quarter right. The real thing he forgot to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: Why is it we were successful in striking a deal with the Government of Canada? That is the fundamental question. It was a reflection of solid leadership, visionary individuals, strong negotiation, an understanding and a passion for what was fundamentally right, a clear understanding of what was fundamentally real and belonging to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and never, ever losing sight of that, I say, Madam Chair, never, ever losing sight of the realization that what we got from the federal government was not a gift, it was not something that was not ours. They finally acknowledged that Newfoundland and Labrador was finally getting what was duly theirs, what was ours in the first place. We were just successful.

The Premier and his strong leadership and a team of people around him finally were able to convince the federal government that we were absolutely right and we deserve for them to give us what was rightfully ours. That is the real reason we are where we are today. It was not a gift from the federal government, as the Leader of the Opposition would suggest, it was a reflection of strong negotiation -

AN HON. MEMBER: He thought it was a gift.

MR. WISEMAN: He may have thought it was a gift. You are absolutely right.

I say, Madam Chair - and I use the same words that the Leadership of the Opposition used - how soon they forget. Thirty-four short months ago. Well, I say, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not forgotten. Look at the successive polls that have done since we formed government thirty-four months ago. They realize, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador fully realize, that we now have a Province that is headed in the right direction. It has a government that is on a even keel, it has a government with strong leadership, it has a government with strong vision and an understanding of where we need to be and should be as a Province to continue to be successful, I say, Madam Chair.

What we are hearing here tonight, what we are hearing from the Opposition, the crowd of people on the opposite side who are in such disarray, leaderless as the Telegram reports, not knowing where they are going, rudderless, unpopular, leaderless and lame - now what else would you expect from a crowd of people opposite when they are being described using those kinds of words to describe them? What else might we expect other than to get up and use a bill, the Tobacco Tax Act, which is a finance bill which gives them a fair latitude, to rant and rave about all the things that we are not doing? What else would you expect from a crowd of people who have nothing else to lend?

I just listened a moment ago to the Finance Critic who stood up and asked the question: When did you ever see an Opposition Party in this country vote for a Budget? I say to her: When else did you find an Opposition Party in this country who was not trying to prove that they were a viable alternative to the existing government? When else would you find that in this country, I say? All they are confirming for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say, Madam Chair, is that they are functioning as an Opposition from one perspective only, they believe that it is their right, their responsibility to be critical of every single thing that they hear in this House, be critical of every single thing that happens with this government. They believe that is their right and their responsibility. They do not fully understand that it is their responsibility to be critical, yes, of what government is doing, but as they criticize what we are doing, if we are not doing something right, is to be able to provide an alternative: What else would we do, what else should we do, and demonstrate to the people of the Province that they could be, at some future time, a viable alternative to this government. That is not what we are hearing. What we are hearing is irresponsible criticism of good public policy, irresponsible criticism of a sound Budget that finally now has us on an even keel. People understand what I say, Madam Chair, people in this Province fully understand and recognize and see through what they are hearing. People realize that this government finally is headed in the right direction.

Yes, there are some things that we can continue to build on. Yes, there are some things that we can continue to improve on. Yes, there are some things that we can do differently tomorrow. I say, Madam Chair, there will be continued improvement in this Province. No one will ever stand in this House, for any government, and say that what we are doing is the absolute best thing in the world and there is no need for improvement and there is nothing to be built on. We are not suggesting that. What we are suggesting, I say though, is that we have just delivered one of the best budgets to ever be delivered in this Province. It puts us on a sound footing. This Budget document which outlines our spending strategy and the other strategy documents that we have introduced in this House, have been tabled in this House, whether it has been on culture, tourism; whether it has been on innovation; whether it has been on poverty; whether it has been on wellness. All of those strategies map out the kind of direction that we are headed in this Province, and this Budget document spells out how we are going to finance it and how we are going to be viable as a Province.

I say to the members opposite, if you want to be a responsible Opposition, stand in this House and acknowledge the good things that are happening in this Province instead of out there fear-mongering. If you want to reverse the trend and reverse the criticism that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is leaving on your step today, talking about the kind of opposition -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - you have to change that, I say to members opposite, change your attitudes.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to apologize to the Member for St. John's Centre. I was speaking earlier about the roads in the Bay of Islands and I mentioned his name for someone who was smiling and it was not the Member for St. John's Centre. So, I apologize for that misunderstanding and just have it for the record.

I have to say, the Member for Trinity North - boys, oh boys, I have to say - and there are certain members over there who could get up and say what they like because some of them have some credibility with me, but this member, back before he crossed the floor - get this now, Madam Chair, get this. He stands up there so pious: Oh, you have to listen, I am this big guy. The Voisey's Bay discussion, and we had a caucus meeting out in Carbonear. Get this now. We had a caucus meeting out in Carbonear. He came up to me with a list about two pages, he said: Ask these questions on Voisey's Bay. I said: You ask them. No, no, no, he said, you ask them for me. I said: You ask them yourself, boy. Go on, we have a caucus meeting. So, anyway, about a week later he is on Open Line with Bill Rowe when he crossed the floor. I had this planned for six months, he said. Here were a bunch of questions for me to ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: He would not ask himself. He did not have the audacity to ask himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: He was not man enough to ask himself, but gave me two pages of questions to ask on Voisey's Bay. Now, what was he going to do with the questions and the answers? I do not know. I can surmise but I will not surmise. This member was standing up and trying to lecture us, Mr. Trustworthy himself, the centrefold for trustworthy, handed me questions and asked me to go on Bill Rowe and say we had this planned for six months. And you expect us to sit down and listen to him? Anybody else - even the Member for Gander, sometimes we disagree but when he stands up you have to listen to him because he stands sometimes with conviction or whatever. The Member for Baie Verte, the same thing. The Government House Leader, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs sometimes. There are certain people you just cannot stand, you cannot even sit down and tolerate, giving you a lecture on what the rights and wrongs are. He happens to be one of them because I was the member when he handed me the two pages of questions and asked me would I ask them in the caucus meeting so he could get the answers. Asking me to ask the questions and expect me to sit down and say: Oh yeah, Mr. Trustworthy centrefold. Anyway, I will get back to that at another time.

Madam Chair, we heard the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans being criticized there, and the Member for Exploits and the Member for Windsor-Springdale, talking about you voted against the Budget. Oh yeah, send out the press release. Send it from the PC Party, you voted against the Budget. Let's just turn it around a small bit because if there is an action there has to be a reaction. They voted for the Budget. They voted for it.

Here is what the Member for Exploits voted for. So the people in his district, when he stands up and criticizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, here is what he voted for. He voted for the courthouse to close down. The courthouse is gone now, one of the services that was offered in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He voted for that. The Social Services office closed down. He voted for that. So all of a sudden because you never voted for that you are a bad person. He voted for that.

The highway's depot closed down, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know how many people are in his district, six or seven got laid off. Middle Arm is it? Where is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Northern Arm.

MR. JOYCE: Northern Arm. I do not know how many people got laid off there. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may know because he was the minister last year who did it. He may let us know.

MR. REID: Two more laid off in Bishop's Falls last week.

MR. JOYCE: Two more laid off in Bishop's Falls last week.

He stands up and says you voted against it, but I voted for it. So he voted for all these layoffs.

Forestry office, we just seen the Mayor of Botwood out complaining that they are hoping - and this is what I have not figured out yet, of course I do not know the situation. The forestry office that came up to get permits is closed down in Botwood. Now they are hoping that people will have to go to a highway's depot, but the highway's depot out my way, you are not allowed on the property for safety reasons. There are people from that area now who are asked to go to the highway's depot. That is where they are going to get their permits, in the highway's depot. Now, if I walked across the big gate in the highway's depot in Corner Brook, I would be asked to leave the property for unsafe conditions, heavy trucks coming in, tractors coming in. So, I have not figured that one out yet.

Teachers, how many teachers were laid off last year out in his district? How many teachers?

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Yes, I agree with you. There was a lot laid off, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl - 500 in two years. Thanks for the list. Pass it to your Member for Exploits. He would love to know how many he voted to lay off. He would love to know.

Civil service layoffs, how many were laid off that he voted for? How many did he vote for to lay off?

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Six at Workers' Compensation, Grand Falls-Windsor, which I am sure services that area.

The out-migration in his area. He voted for funding for a rural secretariat where there is out-migration gone wild in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He stands up and says: Oh, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans voted against the Budget. Look what he voted for. So the people out in Exploits, when you want to see him and say I voted for the Budget, look what he voted for.

How about the port in Botwood? I wonder, are there any funds in this year's Budget for the port in Botwood? I wonder, because I know the Mayor of Botwood had to get a hold of us to try to get the letter from the former Minister of Transportation and Works on the divesture. I know that. Two years getting that, and they had to call us and we had to raise it here in the House of Assembly. So, I just wonder now, when you say that someone voted against something, what did you vote for?

The Member for Exploits can stand up here tonight and explain why he voted for all of that. If he really wants to stand up and say why he voted for all of that, he can go right ahead. For the highway's depot workers that he just put out of work, now some of them might have to move away or some may not be able to make ends meet. Why don't you go down and speak to them and say, yeah, I voted for that? I thumped the desk when that was announced. That is a good move. Why don't you do it? Go down and do it.

So, the next time the member and the Member for Windsor-Springdale want to criticize, remember what you voted for. Remember what you voted for. It is not all roses. I ask him: How many people down in Triton are not called back to work yet in the crab plant? How many people are not called back? You cannot answer that, can you? You can't because you will not. You will not answer that, and you know that.

Madam Chair, we will get back to the Budget here at hand. Sometimes you get off track a bit because you cannot listen to their foolishness all the time about people, who voted for what. If you say one thing, and the Government House Leader already said: If you open yourself up, get ready.

We talk about the increase in taxes in registration of vehicles and vehicle permits, and the money is supposed to be put back into roads. Again, I have to get back to the Bay of Islands. The Government House Leader: You made a good statement when you were up speaking, and here is the statement. You said: There is not enough money to fix all the problems with the roads.

MR. E. BYRNE: In one year.

MR. JOYCE: One year. I agree 100 per cent. I agree with you, but there is absolutely no need to have two roads unsafe. Absolutely no need! I can tell you now, that if the minister - and I challenged the former minister last year to put it on the table, the recommendations from the highways. Those safety concerns were highly recommended to be fixed.

When the Member for Port au Port wants to know why I voted against the Budget, it is very easy. I have no problem with any luxury when it comes to a road. I understand that there are some roads a bit less on a downgrade than others. I have no problem with that. I have absolutely none. When you have two highways, one on the North Shore and one on the South Shore, and the officials in Deer Lake are actually calling me and saying, Ed, boy, someone is going to get hurt - they are actually calling me. The people who work on the highways, who are friends of mine who I see on a regular basis, they are actually telling me how unsafe it is and they cannot get the funds to get it fixed. There is absolutely no need of it. It is incumbent upon any government to keep the highways safe. It is actually incumbent upon you to do it. This is not a luxury item.

The former Minister of Transportation and Works, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he is well aware of the problem, because last year, apparently, he sent out a deputy minister who all of a sudden found out about the problem. After about eight or ten reports sent in from Deer Lake for the last four months prior, three or four letters from me, two or three times speaking to him personally, he sent out a deputy minister who found out there was a problem. Guess what, Madam -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: Well, I will be back again. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the few words. I have to reiterate that the roads in the Bay of Islands are unsafe. There are three or four (inaudible) that need to be fixed for safety concerns alone.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I was up the last time speaking to some of the issues raised by members and, in particular, dealing with roads budgets. I made a statement at the time that I would go out, after I spoke, and find out exactly what was spent in each of the years from when the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans was elected - I think it was 1996 when she was first elected - and compare that five or six years, six years I think, to the last three years when we were in government.

The point of the debate is this: When it comes to the Roads Program, I made the statement that this government has spent more year over year since we became the government than the previous Administration did in any previous year. The other part of the debate that I entered into was, where was that money being spent. All that money for the most part was being spent in rural parts of the Province. There is no question that the more you spend on the Roads Program the more jobs you create. The Member for Bay of Islands is right. I mean, there is not a single roads program that could be introduced by any government in any given year that would solve all of the issues in every district. The capacity within the industry is an issue in terms of, we may want to put $200 million in but there is no sense putting x number of dollars in a roads budget that cannot be taken up.

For the record, Madam Chair, I just want to go through it. In 1996-1997, the provincial roads budget was $6 million. That is correct. In 1996-1997, the provincial roads budget for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was $6 million. Now, somehow we have been accused - since we have become the government, we have had two construction seasons. We were elected in November, became the government officially in November 2003, so we have had two construction seasons. Now, apparently in those two construction seasons the problems associated with roads in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and in the districts we represent have all happened during those two construction seasons; apparently. I beg to differ on that.

In 1997-1998, the provincial roads budget was $19 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

MR. E. BYRNE: That was in 1997-1998. In 1998-1999, for the entire Province it was just $12 million. In 1999-2000, the provincial roads budget - guess how much it was the year after that? It was just $12 million. That was for forty-eight districts, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the House, in Newfoundland and Labrador. That does not factor in the federal money, but I will get to that in a second. In Budget 2000-2001, the entire roads budget for the entire Province was $15 million. In 2002-2003, in the election year, they ramped it up to a big whopping $22 million. Now!

What we saw on the roads was pavement being spread out over a greater length of road to try and leave an impression, in many districts, that more was done than actually could be done. That caused significant maintenance issues. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Bay de Verde barons my colleague talks about, yes.

In those six years, members opposite who sat in government, spent $81 million on the roads budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty-one? Just eighty-one?

MR. E. BYRNE: Eighty-one.

Now, here is the difference. The facts I think are important. Seeing that these issues have been raised, it is important to speak to what is. In the last three years: In 2003-2004, we spent $25.6 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no. In terms of the Budgets, what we added to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. This is the third Budget year we have had thus far. There is a difference, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. We have been in for two construction seasons thus far. This construction season will be our third, the one that we are into right now, so this is our third Budget.

First year, 2003-04, $25.6 million; 2004-05, $30 million; and this year, $48.7 million. In three years, we have committed $104.3 million compared to $81 million over six years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, we intend to do more. We intend to do more. We intend to do a lot more. We intend to do a lot more, and we have demonstrated that through the multi-year commitment in terms of infrastructure strategy.

Now, when you step back and you think about what we are up to and why there was a requirement for an infrastructure strategy or a significant increase in the rural roads budget - the Leader of the Opposition, I have a few minutes left yet. I will sit down. I know you do not like to hear what I am talking about but I am going to continue until my time is up. Like you, I have lots of time, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no problem.

The fact of the matter is, that from 1996 - I will not even go back before that because it does not amount to any more than that either. I think in one year out of fifteen the biggest they ever spent was $29 million or $30 million.

Madam Chair, the fact of the matter is this, that when we inherited government, the lack of investment in rural roads in Newfoundland and Labrador that occurred over the previous decade was significant. We look at former Premier's districts, in Exploits for example: $250,000 a year spent in Exploits. Hardly anything spent in Bonavista North. How the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans can get up and say that prior to us becoming a government, in two construction seasons, the road from Buchans was perfect, I beg to differ with that. I think the people in Buchans would beg to differ with that too.

Are we saying that there are not issues related to maintenance and upgrading those areas? No, we are not. Everyone has acknowledged that. I can tell you, from my perspective, my travel over the road to Buchans on numerous occasions in the past ten years, it was hardly perfect when the member was in government. Somehow it became imperfect, and all of a sudden it is not a road worth driving over right now since we became the government. That is not true.

The facts speak for themselves. A lack of investment in rural road infrastructure led to a situation where the infrastructure, from a road point of view, was so in decline, it was let go so much, that if we could this year put more money into roads, we would have done it. If you look at six years, and the investment they made from 1996 until we became the government, $81 million. If you were to compare the three years that we have been there, we spent $104. If you calculated that out over the next three years, we would spend about $208 million compared to their $81 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate that members, irrespective of the sides of the House they have to sit on, advocate, as they should, for the districts they represent. But to stand up tonight, or any other night, or any other day, and say that the roads in this Province are deplorable, yes they are, but to accuse this government of making those roads deplorable because we are not putting enough money into them, I beg to differ, because the facts speak for themselves. In three years we spent $23 million more than they did in the previous six. Madam Chair, the strategy that is in play and the strategic approach that is in play over the next five will see a lot more money invested, not just in roads, but in rural infrastructure.

The fact is this: That in each of our districts there are always needs that must be addressed. I appreciate that members, whether they be from the Bay of Islands, whether they be from Baie Verte, whether they be from any part of Newfoundland and Labrador, if there are significant issues, like the ones that you have raised, then those are issues that need to be dealt with as soon as they can be dealt with over periods of time. We cannot get to everything right away. There is not enough money in any single budget to get to everything right away. Madam Chair, I will say this, that in defence of the government's own rural roads budget - this is not a statement of opinion, all you need to do is go to the Legislative Library, look for yourselves over the past budgets, make the comparisons and let it speak for itself.

Madam Chair, what we are attempting to do, what I believe we are doing specifically on roads, we have made a significant investment, double or triple what they have done, and we will continue to do that. Do you know why? Because it is the right thing to do for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If you do not have the necessary infrastructure in place, if it is not there on roads, if it is not there in hospitals, then where will investment come from? It will not follow. Our view: Make the investments as we are making in rural infrastructure, in roads, in hospitals and schools, and you will have a better chance of following a prosperous economy or the hope of attracting industry towards it.

Madam Chair, I present the facts as they are. Let people decide who is right or wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do enjoy the debate with the Government House Leader. I think he is probably one of the better ones across the floor, and I actually enjoy the to and fro of debate. What bothers me greatly, Madam Chair, is when we get the Member for Trinity North stand on his feet here and lecture us about what a dismal failure our government was from 1989 till 2003. He talks about it as if he was not part of it. Madam Chair, I remember distinctly back in 2000 spending my Easter holidays away from my children and my wife campaigning for that gentleman, campaigning for that individual, I should say, under a Liberal banner in Trinity North. Why was he going under a Liberal banner, I ask, if we were such a bad government from 1989 until 2000? What has happened to him in recent days or recent years that he has seen the light?

What I really find galling is when he gets up and attacks individuals and quotes from the paper about leadership of the Liberal Party and things like that, individuals who actually spent their Easter holidays campaigning for this man, campaigning for him. He did not see too much wrong with us at that time. We did not hear too much criticism when we were knocking on doors down through Trinity North, never heard a complaint then about how we were not a fit bunch to be associated with, that we were nothing only a bunch of gangsters out spending the government purse. We never heard any of those words from the Member for Trinity North.

What really galls me more than the fact that he crossed the floor, because people make decisions for different reasons - I know the reason he crossed the floor, but we can get into that later on if you want to - but what really galls me is an individual who sat in the caucus room, and I tell the members opposite so that you will know who you are dealing with, sat in the caucus room, held meetings with him on a daily basis, went to lunch with him on a daily basis, and he comes on an Open Line show after he crossed the floor and says, I have had this planned for six months, when the girls who work in our offices upstairs in this building said that he was burning up photocopiers copying everything that he could get his hands on in the six months prior to crossing the floor. That is what he did.

MR. JOYCE: Coming in in the nighttime.

MR. REID: Coming in in the night time, and asking the Member for Bay of Islands to go to caucus meetings and ask questions, so he could take the questions back to his now Premier, and find out what was going on with the Voisey's Bays and the Lower Churchills.

I find it really disturbing to have to sit here and listen to that man get up and criticize my character and criticize my colleague's character, and say that the Liberal government was not fit. He saw fit, I say, to run as a Liberal in the year 2000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I can tell you now why he crossed the floor, and it had nothing to do with the new leader of the Tory Party. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Tory Party at all. It had all to do about his future and not anybody else's, not his constituents, not the people who voted for him as a Liberal, not the people who voted for him as a Tory. If the timing is right, he will be skittering across the floor in another direction. I find it galling that I have to sit here and listen to that man lecture me.

I do not like to do what I am doing now but, boy, when you open the doors, you better be prepared - as the House Leader says, your House Leader, the Government House Leader, says all the time: Be careful what you say, be careful what you do, because it will always come back to haunt you in this House of Assembly. How many times did I see the Government House Leader rise and mention things that Tom Lush said when he was Government House Leader on the other side of the floor. He used to quote him, verbatim, time and time and time.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who?

MR. REID: You did. I learned a lot from you, watching you in Opposition, I say to the Government House Leader, when you would drag out Hansard and quote from people.

Madam Chair, I am not going to sit here and listen to the Member for Trinity North lecture me about what we did and what we said, especially after what we have seen from that man, a man who could sit in your confidence for six months and then cross the floor after he gathered every bit of knowledge. Just like a chipmunk gathering nuts for the winter, he gathered information for six months. That is what we are dealing with here tonight.

Now I am going to go back to the highways depots because that is where I was earlier tonight before the individual for Trinity North got up to speak. Earlier I talked about thirteen highways depots being closed in this Province, thirteen highways depots that reside in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. None of them exist in the larger urban centres in this Province, and we have few of those, I might add. Madam Chair, these thirteen highways depots have seen the loss of employment for close to 100 individuals in this Province, as I said earlier, all of whom have families, all of whom are working towards a pension, all of whom used to plan their vacation in the summertime. They do not have to plan vacations now. They have six months vacation.

Then the Minister of Finance stands tonight and talks about: Oh, with the money we are going to save from those thirteen closures, $1.2 million according to the previous Minister of Transportation's own words, that money we are going to put into materials. Well, I do not know how far out of touch the Minister of Finance is when it comes to $1.2 million worth of materials when it comes to road construction or road repair, because I would hazard to guess that this year alone you are going to pay somewhere between $120,000 and $150,000 just for recap alone with no work being done on the road, no upgrade on the road, just for recap alone, $120,000. Maybe if you are lucky, I say to the minister, if you get eight or nine kilometres of recap for the sake of destroying 100 families in this Province, all of them who reside in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Then he talks about how we are going to put that back into the roads.

Madam Chair, I do not know if any of you have had the opportunity to drive from Gander Bay to Twillingate or Gander Bay to Crow Head, because I will tell you one thing, with it's seven member crew down there now looking after both those depots, the one in Gander Bay and the one on New World Island - you might save $70,000 worth of materials by laying off those seven individuals, but, boy, I do not know what you are going to do. How much material are you going to get for $70,000? Very little, a couple of pickup truck loads. Who is going to spread it if you have to buy a bit of gravel, if you have seven individuals this week trying to cover the roads from Gander Bay all the way across and down through the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's district? Because he has roads in that district too that go down to Farewell, he has roads in Boyd's Cove that need to be upgraded and fixed and the shoulders repaired this summer.

Then you come across New World Island. New World Island alone has nineteen communities, I say to those members opposite, nineteen communities on New World Island alone. There are ten somewhat different communities on Fogo Island. To have one crew do all of New World Island, all of Twillingate Island, parts of Lewisporte District and Gander Bay, I will tell you even that measly $70,000 that you are going to buy in materials this year will have difficulty finding someone to spread it and to fix the potholes that are in that road.

You are talking about saving $70,000. I ask, where is the heart, where the soul of that party across the floor when you are talking about axing 100 families, some of them with school age children and their father comes home with a layoff slip in their hand because the government is doing seven of us to save $70,000? Where is the justice, where is the sympathy and the empathy in that, when you have to come home and tell your kids that I have been laid off because the minister wants to buy a load of gravel to fill a pothole? The unfortunate thing about it is, there is no one left to fill the pothole with the bit of gravel that you are after buying.

The Minister of Natural Resources, the Government House Leader, gets up and he brags - how fast things change - about all the money they are going to spend on highways this year in this Province. Granted, yes, you are going to spend more this year if you spend it, because you did not spend it all last year, I say to the member opposite. You announced last spring around this time that you were going to pave a portion of the road on Fogo Island. That is still yet to be paved, I say to the minister. You added the few bucks to it this year and gave the commitment you are going to pave it. Well, it is not paved yet.

What I am saying, Madam Chair, is that fortunately for this Province we did get the Atlantic Accord, fortunately we got the Atlantic Accord and it changed everything. We did not have the money from 1996, when I got elected, until 2003 when you fellows got elected as the government. We did not have the money to do all that was necessary, but I will guarantee you one thing if you could drive through my district you will find that we did quite a bit. I will tell you something else too, because I had the discussions with the director out in Central many times, that the member from the Baie Verte Peninsula got his share of Liberal government dollars for his roads. Do you know the reason why? Because his district in the Central Region was ranked as the worst for road conditions in that area. Guess who was right behind him? My district. We did give him money, and I would say that the Member for Baie Verte probably went head to head with me for money in the Central Newfoundland Region. We did share the pot and we-

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: A few seconds to clue up, Madam Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: That is okay, Madam Chair, if you do not want to give me the time, I will be back after ten minutes anyway.

MADAM CHAIR: They gave you leave. They said yes.

MR. REID: That is all right, I will be back.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will just have another few words on the roads. This is a money bill issue as we all know, so I guess we can always ask what are we going to do with the $9 million that is going to be raised from the increased taxes for tobacco?

I heard the Government House Leader, and you gave a good spiel, I must say, but you are forgetting the other part, the road maintenance part. In 2001, you were saying that there was $44 million spent in road maintenance in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; in 2002, there was $48 million; and in 2003, which you said again was our budget, there was $47 million. You are probably right in saying that it is the most money every spent, but for the three years - this is the third budget - the first year there was $8 million that was never spent, carried over. Last year government said it was the most money ever spent. Now, last year there was $12 million that was not spent. The $12 million that was not spent last year was carried over to this year, so this year they are saying the most money we ever spent. There was $20 million over the last two years, that is included in the figures, that was never spent. It came from fees, $26 million in taxes.

Even the former Minister of Transportation and Works said that the increase in motor registration vehicle fees will be put back into the roads. We are taking credit by going out and taxing all of the people and saying: Oh yeah, we have more money for roads. We are going to take it from one hand and put it in the other hand. What we are going to do every year, we are going to hold back so much so the next year we can carry it over and say it is the most we ever spent. Twelve million dollars was not spent last year. It just was not spent.

Then you look in the Bay of Islands once again, with very little funding, and the safety issues and concerns. The Member for Baie Verte can remember me quite plainly standing up and picking up for him because the road in La Scie was so dangerous. The Member for Baie Verte - I know he will be a gentleman and stand on his feet and recognize that, that when there is a safety concern it has to be addressed, it just has to be addressed. No matter how you cut it, no matter how you push it, when there is a safety concern it has to be addressed.

I am not going to go harping on, if you cannot get something and you do not get your own way, or if you cannot get this or you think you should have, but when it comes to safety I will not stop bringing this issue forward. I will definitely not stop. I will do it publicly and I will be meeting with the councils, because these are safety concerns.

The issue that I bring back is, the Minister of Transportation and Works is well aware that going down on the York Harbour road, because of the gabion baskets - I know the Member for Twillingate & Fogo talked about the layoffs, the thirteen depots and the layoffs. I will just an example of how that affects rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I will just use going down into York Harbour with the gabion baskets. In behind the gabion baskets there are always rocks there, and every year the maintenance crew will come along and clean them out. The last couple of years they haven't done it, they cannot do. They do not have the personnel to do it. What happens? When you have the gabion baskets so high, all the rocks build up behind. When they get equal to the gabion baskets, the rocks keep coming down over the hills. Guess where they are going? On the road.

A couple of times this year in the winter, the tractors hooked into gabion baskets and tore the gabion baskets. There were holes in the gabion baskets. The rocks are still coming down and going on the roads. The department officials here in St. John's are well aware of the issue. They are just not doing anything about it. I am not sure if it is the officials or if it is just on the minister or Cabinet level that they refuse to recognize the safety concerns in the Bay of Islands. It is just absolutely ridiculous!

The road to McIver's, where I had to go last year with the minister toe to toe for about three or four months, finally got something done just to try to keep the peace. I said it back then, that road is not done properly, we will be back again. Guess what? It is back, if not as bad it will soon be just as bad as last year when there was about five-foot drop. When you leave from one end and come out, there is about a five-foot drop on the other side. If any school bus ever gets a flat tire coming over that, forget it. There is every potential that the bus can have a dangerous accident there. From the fish plant, coming out from Cox's Cove carrying the fish in the tractor trailers, if the load shifts either bit whatsoever - ask anybody out there - if the load shifts in the tractor trailer, there is a potential for a serious accident in that area.

The former Minister of Transportation and Works sent out his deputy minister, who all of a sudden had a conversion and said: Oh, we have a problem there. Guess what, Minister? The problem is back. You have to fix the problem. Then they try to throw out: Where can you find the money? I heard the big pious Minister of Finance stand up and talk about what we did and how they would never do it.

One hundred and fifty thousand dollars: Does that ring a bell with many people opposite? I am sure it does for the Member for Topsail. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars, that is what the VON got, so the Premier had a ticket free golf tournament. Guess who gave them the money? The Minister of Finance. The Financial Administration Act was broken. The Minister of Health lost her job over it. I have to give you credit, you stood on principle. Taking $150,000, going out and giving it to the VON - the VON is a great organization. If you were going to do it, you should have done it up-front, given them a grant and said: Here is a grant to the VON. You gave them $150,000 to do a study. Most of it, the Premier was out in Corner Brook with a wink and a nod and saying: Oh, yes, do not worry about it, you will find some way, be creative. Who did it? The big Minister of Finance who just stood up and said: Oh, we do not do any of that stuff. The deputy minister got fired over it. The former Minister of Health lost her job over it. How many people in here ever seen the report that was done? How many people ever seen the report from the VON tabled that was done, supposed to be done last March, over a year ago? How many people seen it? Silence, no there was no report done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: No, can't get it. We cannot get the report because with a wink and a nod out in Corner Brook: You can find some creative way, use some of the money from Administration, take care of the wages. The minister lost her job and the deputy minister was fired out the door. The big, pious, Minister of Finance stood up and said: Oh, we will never do that. He broke the Financial Administration Act by giving them money that they knew was not used for the purpose that it was supposed to be, without going to tender, without going through any type of standing offer whatsoever. So, I look at $150,000. That would do a lot of work with the safety concerns in the Bay of Islands.

Then I heard the minister say - I mean, here is the funny one. I heard the minister say that the employment level is so high. I suppose it is with all the Tory appointments. I understand Nada Borden has another appointment. She is on the - is it the Labour Relations Board as the employer's rep? Lord, blessed God, she is after having more appointments through this government. She is after having more - my, God, this is another one, and she is an employer's rep.

MR. SHELLEY: Put forward by the Employers' Council.

MR. JOYCE: Put forward by the Employers' Council. It must be a different Employers' Council I was speaking to, let me tell you. So, when you talk about all the people who have the positions and whatever, you have to look at where they are coming from and why they are appointed into what positions.

Madam Chair, sometimes you always wonder about the commitments in the Blue Book. This is something again that I have to revert to in the election of 2003, which I almost lost, which was contested in court. We are all aware of that being contested in court. It had to go through the court and stand up and prove - pardon?

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no such thing as almost losing.

MR. JOYCE: That is true. The Government House Leader said there is no such thing as almost losing. That is true, but I had to go to court. Imagine now, little old me. A little old guy from the Bay of Islands had to go to court, and one of the seven or thirteen - I am not sure, my recollection - one of the seventeen or thirteen, that my lawyer had to prove that the mother who was the Returning Officer never asked her son or daughter for an ID, so therefore the vote should not count. I had to go defend that. I had to actually go and defend that in 2003, because Mike Monaghan, through the wisdom - Mike Monaghan shook my hand and said: The Premier told me to do it, asked me to do it, Ed. Do not take it personal. He shook my hand outside the courtroom. He shook my hand and that is what he said to me.

So, we go back to 2003, and you look at commitments. I know down in the Bay of Islands, again, the breakwater out in Lark Harbour, the Premier went out there and promised over $650,000 to fix the breakwater. Guess what? There are no funds -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am sure I will have an opportunity to speak again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Anyway, Madam Chair, I think I was on roads when I sat down, and I will say a few more words on that before I move on to another topic.

I think the Minister of Finance already said tonight where he got the money so they could spend it on roads. Regardless of what the Member for Trinity North said, I think the Minister of Finance admitted tonight that, as a result of the Atlantic Accord, we do have more money this year for roads, and we are going to need more money for roads. The reason we did not complete all the roads is because we did not have the money at the time. In fact, the Minister of Finance condemned us year after year after year. When he was the critic sitting right there, and the Minister of Finance was sitting over there, every year he told us we were spending ourselves into bankruptcy. Yet, his colleagues who sat over here with him, were begging for new money. That is the reason we did not do the roads. I thought we were quite responsible because we could have borrowed more money but we did not at the time, and those were difficult decisions.

I will tell you now, the people of this Province do not think, regardless of where you are coming from opposite and you are putting the money into the roads this year - you are saying you are putting $60 million, $12 million of which is left over from last year - regardless of that, the roads are in terrible shape. We can sit here all night and argue who is responsible for it. The fact of the matter is, they are in terrible shape and they are getting worse by the day. I had the occasion on Friday, and again on Sunday, of driving back over that brand new piece of road that was put down between Goobies and heading east. There are cracks and bumps already in that, and that hasn't been down a year yet. That did not go down until August or September of last year and that is already starting to come apart. So, that is something ongoing, I say to those opposite, that you are always going to have a problem with.

If you talk about tourism, I mean, we are not going to get tourism in Twillingate, especially coming out of Gander and heading toward Twillingate if they have to go over that Gander Bay road where there are ruts in it, and in some places, I would say, eight to ten inches deep. They are actually dangerous. I, certainly, would not want to drive a motorcycle over it, and I certainly would not want to drive a motorhome, like the Premier has, over it because there would be nothing left to the vehicle when you got there. You certainly would not have any dishes left in it. We are trying to encourage tourism in my district because that is one of the destinations in Twillingate, and we are trying to encourage more tourism on Fogo Island, and yet the roads are not fit to go over. The ferry rates have reached a point now, in going to Fogo Island, where that is going to deter tourism.

Madam Chair, let's talk about, as well, when the members opposite were up tonight talking about all we did not do and how proud they were of the Budget. The Member for Mount Pearl stands up over there every now and then, or grumbles and rumbles, makes a few rumbles about the number of teachers we laid off in the fifteen years that we were there. Well, you are doing a good job of it. You laid off 500 in the two years that you were there. You can pass me the paper all you like. We have never taken as many teachers out in one year as you fellows did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did.

MR. REID: No, we did not. We always left teachers in there. This year is the first year that you did it. Last year you tried to take them all. So I am not going to get up and pat you on the back for leaving teachers in the classroom this year because you took 500 out of it last year.

Like my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, she walked across the floor and shook the Premier's hand when he re-announced the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, after he cut it from his Budget the year before. The only reason he cut it is because he knew he would do it eventually down the road so that he could take credit for it, because he could not let a Liberal government take credit for that initiative. He could not do that. Just like he could not let a Liberal government take credit for the initiative of the Mealy Mountain auditorium in Goose Bay. The member is running around Goose Bay up there now the spring yelling and screaming about we have the auditorium. I do not think the people in Goose Bay forget that quickly. I really do not believe that they forget in two-and-a-half short years that it was you and your government who put the stop to the Mealy Mountain auditorium because the money was in the Budget in 2003 for that auditorium. The money was there. In fact, the ground behind the school was compacted so that they could get ready to start the construction that spring, I say to the member.

They talk about what we did not do. All we hear from you opposite is about this group over here driving this Province into bankruptcy. You forget to mention all the positive things that we did when we were driving it into bankruptcy, as you would say. You forget to mention things, especially in education, a portfolio I occupied for a few short months prior to the change of government. Just in sitting here, listening to my colleague speak for a few minutes, I know that after educational reform occurred in 1997 we committed at that time that any money saved from educational reform would be reinvested back into the school systems in this Province, and we did it. We might not have kept every teacher there but we definitely reinvested the money.

I can sit here and look across the floor tonight at districts that you members opposite represent, where I had the occasion to open schools. I will mention a few of them. I will start with the Member for Lake Melville in Goose Bay. Lake Melville probably has the best school, not only in this Province located in Goose Bay, but probably one of the best in Canada. I was down there just before they opened the school in June of that year. I have never seen a school as good as the one in Goose Bay. I have never seen one. A beautiful school. Who built it? A Liberal government, while driving the Province into bankruptcy. That is who built the school.

I had the occasion to go into Burgeo with my colleague, the member representing Burgeo & LaPoile, we opened another beautiful school in Burgeo. Beautiful. The library in Burgeo cannot be matched in this Province, just simply because of the design layout in a school in Burgeo. I just could not believe it, and I still think about it. What a learning experience. What a beautiful spot. You could sit there and read a book in the library in Burgeo - a brand new school - because what they had there prior to that, if you want to talk about governments, what the Tories left there prior to 1989 was probably one of the worst schools that was in the Province. We built one in Burgeo.

We built a brand new school in Roddickton. It happens to be a Tory district, when you talk about we did not do anything. We built a brand new school in Roddickton. I had the opportunity to go up there with the now Minister of Transportation and Works to open that school, that night. What a beautiful facility that is. I had the same opportunity that very week to open, I think, two redeveloped schools in the Member for St. Barbe's school district. He was there. Two beautiful schools. So, we had Roddickton, two in St. Barbe, Old Perlican. The Member for Trinity South talks about what we did and what we did not do. A beautiful school in Old Perlican, brand new. What is it, three years old now? We had the occasion to open that one.

 

What about on New World Island? I know we had some problems with construction at the time but they have a school that the Minister of Tourism now was down there and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I think, was there the night we opened it. Another beautiful school. Another great initiative by the Liberal government.

What about the Bay of Islands? We did redevelopments in the Bay of Islands on schools over there because they were needed. We did that while driving the Province into bankruptcy. If you listened to the crowd opposite you would swear that we just opened the windows in Confederation Building and let the money fly out through it - fly out through the windows. We wasted money when we talk about building schools in Roddickton and St. Barbe and Old Perlican, New Perlican and New World Island and Bay of Islands, in Goose Bay and in Norman Bay, Labrador. We built a school in Norman Bay, Labrador. I am proud to say we did. I am proud to say, sir, as a past teacher, that I played some small role in the future education of our youth in the Province.

What about Arnold's Cove? Another brand new facility that we built. Blaketown, another one. Buchans. I said Burgeo. The Minister of Education today, I do not know if she has had the opportunity to look at what we did in the school in Upper Ferry, in her district. We do not hear her talk about that. All we hear is talk about what a terrible bunch. You would not know but we were all a bunch of drunks over here that was shovelling money out through the door. That is the way you talk about the previous government, that we drove her into bankruptcy. You forget to talk about that.

What about hospitals, when we were driving the Province into bankruptcy? What did we do? Who built the Janeway onto the Health Sciences Complex over there? Who built the Cancer Clinic? That is what I would like to know. Who built the hospital in Goose Bay? It was not a Tory government. It was a Liberal government.

MR. HICKEY: And Inco. Don't forget Inco.

MR. REID: Oh yes, and the member opposite, the Member for Lake Melville said: Who built it? I said a Liberal government, and he said: And Inco. That every, single person when they were in Opposition, including the Premier, with the exception of Fabian Manning, voted against Inco. Inco would not be in Labrador. Inco would not have contributed, I say to the Member for Lake Melville. Your problem is that you do not know when to open your mouth. You stand in this House every, single day and every time you open your mouth you detract from the total sum of human knowledge, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, because on any given day you are up into a rant and a rave about what a lousy deal Inco is for the Province, but then you will stand here tonight and mumble and grumble out: Oh yeah, you did not build the hospital down there, Inco did. Well, good for Inco. That is what I say, good for Inco.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has elapsed.

MR. REID: Thirty seconds, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. REID: I have talked about Goose Bay. I have not talked about a $50 million hospital in Stephenville, that we bankrupted the Province trying to build and that we should not have built, if we listen you to people. I did not talk about the hospital on Fogo Island, that we spent $15 million on, and your Premier only saw fit to open half the beds in it. Because he did not build it he did not want to open it. It was too late to cancel, so what did he do? He sent the crowd down from Gander to steal the beds and only open half of it.

The Member for Conception Bay South laughs, and it is laughable. The only thing about it, it is true. It is true. Send them in under the cloak of darkness, back the truck into the hospital and took ten beds out of it. Why? The hospital was built. He sent the people out from Gander to steal the beds out of it under the cloak of darkness.

We have a hospital in Goose Bay; we have Stephenville; we have one on Fogo Island. Grand Falls, Carmelite House: we spent a lot of money redeveloping Carmelite House. We committed to the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor that this government, the current government, cancelled, and then said, we are going to reinstate it, and got out and beat their shoulders off patting each other on the back, that they were going to build it.

Gander: The Member for Gander is constantly talking about what we did not do for Gander hospital. Well, we spent $62 million on the Gander hospital. We did not get it finished, no, but we spent $62 million on it. That is what we did. We spent $62 million.

We built a brand new hospital for the people of Harbour Breton. What are you doing for Harbour Breton? That is what I ask. We built a hospital in Harbour Breton, and you drive the people out of the town.

Chuck Furey was sitting here in the House this afternoon and all of you opposite applauded him. You should applaud him. I think he built a hospital near every stadium that he built on the Northern Peninsula. He built at least two hospitals on the Northern Peninsula, a Liberal government, next to the stadiums. It used to be a joke going around the caucus room here, that Chuck had to build a hospital next to every stadium in case there was an injury, because he built the stadiums and then he built the hospitals. More power to him! The people in his district needed it, they wanted it, they deserved it, and he got it for them.

That is what we did. That is how we drove the Province into bankruptcy, and you are telling us, oh, we should have spent more now. Now, all of a sudden, you are in the government and you are up trying to embarrass us about what we did not spend. I am not embarrassed by my record in the House, and there is no one on this side of the House should feel embarrassed, and they are not embarrassed for what we did. We did that in a time when money was tight.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) a courthouse in Goose Bay.

MR. REID: Another thing, the Member for Lake Melville forgets the courthouse in Goose Bay. We did nothing for Goose Bay, if you listen to him talk. We did nothing for Gander, if you listen to the Member for Gander talk. There is a brand new courthouse downtown Gander, beautiful, a centre piece for the town.

What I am trying to say to those opposite - because you talk about what a terrible government we were, and that is just while listening to the member from Trinity North while he was up speaking. Those are some of the things that I listed down while he was up telling us what a bunch of reprobates we were, a leaderless bunch of reprobates.

MR. PARSONS: A new school in Clarenville.

MR. REID: A new school in Clarenville just opened. Who built it? We put more money into schooling in this Province than any government before us, maybe with the exception of Joey Smallwood. Everyone talks about Joey Smallwood and what he did not do. I will say one thing, buddy, God bless the fact that he was around because most of us would not be here tonight. We would not be here tonight without him, because one thing that he did do is he built schools, he built trade schools and he built the University. Not only did he build the University - and I noticed that the Member representing Topsail laughed when I said God bless Joey Smallwood. Well, I will tell you one thing, I would not be here tonight without Joey Smallwood because I would not have been able to afford to go to university, like many of us, unless Joey Smallwood were around and gave us free tuition. Joey Smallwood believed in educating the masses. Before Joey Smallwood and his school construction and his university construction there were two classes in Newfoundland and Labrador, the very rich and the very poor, and there was no one in between. We all know who managed to go to the University under that scheme. That is the reason today that we have so many University graduates, because of the likes of Joey Smallwood and the Liberal government.

We are proud of the initiatives that we undertook when we were in government. I am very proud that we were part of a school construction campaign around this Province, and I am very proud that we played a small role when someone in Burgeo or somebody in Harbour Breton was looking for a hospital, and I had the opportunity to sit around the table and make the case for Harbour Breton, just like the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune made the case for Fogo Island. I am not embarrassed to stand here and say that we did a good job, because we did.

I will tell you one thing, if we had the money that you are sitting on today we would have done a lot more. I will tell you another thing, when we take back the government we will do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to just have a few words with regard to Bill 6.

I think my colleagues from Twillingate & Fogo and from the Bay of Islands have done a good job tonight outlining a number of concerns that we have as the Opposition.

Just to speak a little bit directly to the bill for a minute, which is An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, Mr. Chair, I think that it is worthy to know that the government's own reason or rationale, as they said, this year for increasing taxes on tobacco in the Province was to be able to met their health strategy that they had in place. Yet, Mr. Chair, we have not seen any announcements as it relates to where the new money that is going to be accruing on the increase for tobacco tax, where that is going to be spent to meet the targeted agenda with regard to health, Mr. Chair. There was, I think, $9 million that they are hoping to achieve through these increased taxes, and we do not know where the commitment is for investing that back into addictions programs or promotional programs and so on and so forth.

We do know, Mr. Chair, that when we last heard the Minister of Finance talk about addictions it was in relation to the lottery situation in the Province, and people who were addicted to gambling. At that time, he committed that he was going to reduce the number of lottery machines in the Province by 15 per cent over a three-year period. I do not think we have come anywhere near to meeting the targets in the last two years, if it has been reduced at all.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think if we are going to put stuff on the floor of this House, we should do it accurately. In the Budget, over a year ago, we indicated that we would reduce by 15 per cent beginning April 1, 2006. This year we exceeded - the first year's projection would have been eighty-one machines a year, we took out ninety-one this year. We are ahead of projection, and at the end there will be more than 15 per cent. So, do not put things on the floor of this House that are not accurate. It gives a wrong impression to the public out there. It is something that is not accurate. You have not done your homework or you do not know, so hopefully now you know.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: No point of order, Mr. Chair, but the minister is entitled to stand and speak in the House as soon as I am finished, and he can speak for a long as he wants this evening and tomorrow and the day after that and so on.

Mr. Chair, we have heard commitments before when it comes to the Atlantic Lotto Corporation and people who were addicted to gambling machines in the Province, and commitments that were made to meet certain targets that have no yet been achieved, as I have already said. Now we are looking at increasing tobacco tax. We are supposed to see $9 million in new revenue being invested into programs that are affiliated with health, and we have not seen where that money is going to be invested.

Mr. Chair, as you know, when we have any bills in the Legislature that relate to taxation or money bills, it is certainly free and clear for members to discuss any issue that they want, as it pertains to the Budget, as we have seen here this evening. The Member for Trinity North is nodding his head because it was only a few minutes ago that he was on his feet. Mr. Chair, while he was on his feet he took the opportunity to condemn the previous government for mismanagement of money and how they have been investing and spending money over the course of that time, but he seems to forget that it was only in 2001 when he stood in the House of Assembly - and I have a copy of his speech - and he was very commendable of the government of the day, I say to the member opposite. He talked about what a great job they were doing in investing in things like health care in this Province, transportation in this Province, as well as being committed to a rural agenda. He talks about how he was a member from a rural district and how he was so proud to be a part of a Liberal government that was paying attention to rural areas of the Province.

Mr. Chair, it is a very different song and dance tonight than it was just a few short years ago, in 2001, when he was standing up in the House of Assembly. Maybe he has a new job these days. He has a new job as the parliamentary secretary. He travels around the Province on the taxpayers' money, holding consultations on different things. I think now it is on seniors in our Province and what can be done to meet some of the needs of seniors. Mr. Chair, although the Member for Topsail does not agree that these committees are of much value, as she said in debate on last Wednesday when my colleague for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi put forward a motion on health care in the House and the fact that there should be fairness and equality in drug coverage for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that there should be a select committee of the House to go out and look at this particular issue, the Member for Topsail was not the last member jumping up to her feet, Mr. Chair, over there and saying what a waste of time this was. In fact, she said that the only thing she has ever seen come of select committees was that they would have reports that ended up on the shelf tabled, gathering dust. This is what she said. Maybe the same applies to her -

MR. HARRIS: The Auditor General reports.

MS JONES: Yes, maybe it applies to Auditor General reports. I am not sure, I do not think so, but, Mr. Chair, maybe it applies to a lot of the reports from her colleagues over on the other side of the House. Now there are a whole bunch of them on any other committee going around the Province holding consultations, preparing reports and briefs for the government. Maybe their colleague from Topsail thinks that is a complete waste of time and waste of effort as well, and that these reports are only going to end up on the desks and on the shelves gathering dust at the expense of taxpayers hard earned money that is being forwarded to the government. Maybe that is her view on that as well. She did not go far enough to clarify all of that, but maybe it is.

Mr. Chair, while I am on the topic, I would like to point out something, because there have been a number of select committees of the House of Assembly, some very effective, very productive select committees of the House of Assembly, in fact. I think that my colleague for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was very legitimate when he asked, in a private member's motion last week, to look at drug programs in the Province.

Let me just tell you, auto insurance reform resulted in legislation in the House of Assembly. There was a Select Committee on Auto Insurance Reform that went around the Province, Mr. Chair, held consultations, made recommendations to the government, to the department for review, and gathered the input of the people and the public. To my knowledge, it did not sit on any shelf, it did not gather any dust. Maybe it does now, but it did not, I am sure, at that time. It resulted in legislation and reform in the House of Assembly.

The FPI Act, Mr. Chair: I was a part of the select committee of the House of Assembly that went around the Province with regard to the FPI Act. I can tell you firsthand that the select committee report from those consultations had a tremendous impact on the outcomes of that day and the direction that was taken by FPI, let me tell you. I know it very well, because I lived it, I was a part of it and I participated in it. I can guarantee you one thing, that through those consultations and through the work of a Select Committee of this House of Assembly there were a lot of great recommendations that came forward, not only for the Province but for the federal government as well. The real success in all of that was that FPI came to a realization, as a corporation, that they could not fight this, that they had to back away, and they did back away. We saw amendments made to the legislation on the floor of this House of Assembly supported by members opposite at the time, if I recall correctly, and all of that came from a Select Committee of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Chair, let me tell you about another one. This is one I know very well, as well, the Select Committee on Children's Interests. It was done before I was a member of the House of Assembly. I think it was done in 1993 actually. It was led by Pat Cowan, whom we have just paid our respects to a few days ago. That was an initiative of hers when she was a member of this Legislature. She led the charge for children's interests. As a result of it, Mr. Chair, there was a Select Committee of the House of Assembly. As a result of the work of that Select Committee in the Province - and I want to inform the Member for Topsail that it did not sit on any shelf and did not gather any dust - as a result of that particular report, we saw amendments to the Adoption Act, which was brought forward when I was a member of the House of Assembly in 1996. I was not on the government side at the time, but there were changes brought forward to the Adoption Act as a result of that particular Select Committee.

Also, the Child and Youth Advocate office was established. That was done, Mr. Chair, when I was Parliamentary Secretary in Health responsible for children at the time. That recommendation came right out of the select report on children's interests. It was as they recommended it in the House of Assembly at that time, the members that worked on that report, and that was where we took the idea and the concept and we worked with it, went out and held other roundtable discussions and formed the Child and Youth Advocate office as a result of it.

Today it is functioning very well in the Province, I might add - actually working on some huge investigations as it relates to children's interests.

Let me just say, Mr. Chair, there have been a number of very successful pieces of legislation introduced in this House of Assembly as a result of the work of select committees. I only wanted to -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Just by leave for a couple of minutes to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, just to conclude my comments because I will have another opportunity to get up in a minute, but I wanted to point that out because I think that when you make a comment like that, that select committees are only working to do reports that are going to be placed on shelves and gather dust, it is important to point out that some of them have worked very well, but any select committee of the House of Assembly and the report they deliver is only as good as the government's response and willingness to accept it, I say to the Member for Topsail. If the government is not prepared to accept reports and recommendations of select committees, then you are right, they bear no weight and they have no merit. But if a government is open-minded and is prepared to listen to the recommendations of people around the Province, whether they are channelled through individuals, groups, or through a select committee of the House, will then, of course, you can see some results being derived from it, as we have seen from a number of these select committees in the past, where we had new legislation introduced in the House and new offices established, such as the Child and Youth Advocate Office.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we took office thirty-one months ago. We have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: No, it is thirty-one. I was corrected by your colleague over there. Thirty-one months, and in that time, Mr. Chairman, we have managed to turn around this economy. We have turned this economy around by looking toward the future, building today for tomorrow. We have done that very strategically.

Mr. Chairman, members across the way have talked about how much money we did not put into different things. Now, no respect, we did not do everything we wanted to do over here but we have, certainly, done a significant amount of what we wanted to achieve. For example, we have put $100 million into the educational system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the largest infusion of money into education in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, $100 million. In that, we saved 151 teaching positions in this Province that otherwise would have been lost. We saved that, with significant cost to us.

Mr. Chairman, we also provided money to the College of the North Atlantic, the sum of $8.5 million; additional money to Memorial University, $32.2 million. We allocated money to review ISSP Pathways model that we know in the system now, through collaboration with different stakeholders, that this is a necessity, and we took steps to make that happen. We are now in the process of reviewing the pupil-teacher ratio in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because demographics have changed and if we do not do something there will probably be more teachers lost next year. Mr. Chairman, we are taking a proactive role in doing that.

I looked at this Budget, Mr. Chairman - one other thing on education before I leave that. Six point three million dollars in instructional grants. What would that do? That will eliminate school fees in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. People have talked about that and talked about it, but we took action on that. We took the vision that when a child goes to school they should not be subject to the fact that they have to bring in extra money for school fees. That has become an issue year after year after year and it was only in the last year of the previous Administration that they even knew there were instructional fees being collected, as far as I was concerned. Mr. Chairman, the education component alone will be enough to make this a successful Budget, but did we stop there? The answer to that is, no.

I want to go back to the road construction because the Government House Leader made some very, very good points and I want to make sure that people hear them again. From 1996 to 2002-2003 a total of $81 million of provincial money was spent, and I am delighted he had these figures to bring to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador so they can hear that. In three years since this government was in office, we put in $104.3 million of provincial money. Not cost shared, $104 million of provincial money. Not cost shared, because there are other programs where it costs the federal and provincial and municipal.

Mr. Chairman, when we talk about roads, I had to go to Grand Falls-Windsor last weekend to participate in the high school drama festival. As I left Mount Pearl to drive to Grand Falls-Windsor, what did I see on the road? Paving machines. Now, what is the date? The date is May 15, that was probably the thirteenth or fourteenth. Mr. Chairman, I challenge anyone here in this House to show me the earliest time that construction is started on our roads, and this is the earliest time. I will say that categorically because we are now starting to repave that road, where the ruts were left over years of neglect. We had to go last year - there were ruts between, and other places, but between St. John's and Salmonier that were very, very deep. We had to take precautionary measures last fall to make sure that we would cover up those ruts. We did that. We did that because of the danger that could occur on those roads. Now, we can see improvement. We can see things moving ahead. The asphalt is being laid and the roads are becoming safer. Now, are all the roads safe in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? No, but the problem here is because of the years of neglect, thirteen years of neglect in the roads.

Also, it was pointed out tonight, when we came in here in thirty-one months, we are going into our third construction season. The third construction season, that is what we are going into. People in the Opposition over there blame us because we are not doing enough. We only have two construction seasons under our belt and we are now going into the third. We are putting in $104 million. They had thirteen years. I only see $81 million in that total, so therefore there was neglect. There was no maintenance of those roads.

Now, also, we looked at the teachers, the roads, and we move to health care. Health care is very, very important and we have made significant investment in health care this year and in previous years; significant health care investments because we believe that healthy communities make a healthy Province. We have gone through that in the wellness program.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - and I saw it very clearly about the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. I am going to say this, again, because my hon. friend from Windsor-Springdale has brought up the cancer clinic in Grand Falls time and time and time again, but the hon. member across the way thinks that she is the one who pushed this forward and championed the cause. There was a photo opportunity there when we announced there was going to be two - not one, but two. One in Grand Falls-Windsor and one in Gander. The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans went up to shake the hand of the Premier and say congratulations. That was a photo opportunity for that individual. The Member for Windsor-Springdale brought that to the attention of this caucus time and time and time again. So, I just want to make sure that people understand that.

Mr. Chairman, when we look at health care we have - if you will give me just a minute I will move to the improvements - $15.6 million in new funding invested to help prevent and treat cancer. It includes $3.3 million to construct two new bunkers to house two new radiation treatment machines at the Doctor H. Bliss Murphy Centre - two, not one, two; $1.5 million to enhance the Provincial Cervical Screening Program; $750,000 for breast cancer screening; $6.4 million to introduce new treatment therapies to colorectal cancer and multiple myeloma, and $3.6 million to cover cancer medications.

Mr. Chairman, we have taken our Budget very, very seriously and we have turned this around and we are moving forward as a government. We did not saddle this Province with a $100 billion deficit when we walked in here. We were saddled with that, but we are turning this around. Everyone of them over there would say: Well, where did it turn around? Well, it turned around with this government showing real leadership to get an agreement on the Atlantic Accord; real leadership to make sure that that happened. We also had more real leadership shown by this government announcing, we are going to go with the Lower Churchill on our own. I have talked to many people in Newfoundland and Labrador since that announcement was made and let me tell you, they are very, very proud of the fact that we are going to go it alone by ourselves with our own money. They say more power to you, keep it going, because it makes the ownership of the whole project ours.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you, if we had to say five years ago: Could we have done that? The answer to that was probably, no. But we did this because of the leadership shown by this government and turning things around in the economy. We have done that very, very clearly.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. DENINE: Just a minute to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. DENINE: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I was very, very proud to be part of a government that brought in this Budget. It was visionary, it showed leadership and it showed commitment. I look forward to the next Budget because I think it is going to be better than what this one was. The future is bright for Newfoundland and Labrador and this government has taken the steps to make it happen.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I listened with interest to the Government House Leader. I am always interested in any debate and any speech that he participates in, in the House of Assembly, because I know how selective he is in terms of the information that he gives out.

I have been here in this House since 1989. They are talking about the great amount of money that is being spent on the Provincial Roads Program. The first year that I was in the House of Assembly, in 1989 - $57,849,000 was spent on the Provincial Roads Program in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1989.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that just provincial?

MR. BARRETT: That is just provincial.

In 1989, on the Provincial Roads Program - I remind the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, $57,849,000 spent on the Provincial Roads Program. In 1990 it was $52,580,000 spent on the provincial -

MR. E. BYRNE: That was the Roads for Rail Agreement. (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, no, it is the Provincial Roads Program. The hon. Government House Leader will have an opportunity to refute this, but in 1991 it was $40,318,000 in the Provincial Roads Program. In 1992, it was $39,050,000 in the Provincial Roads Program - not the Roads for Rail Agreement, in the Provincial Roads Program. In 1993, it went down to $25,805,000 in the Provincial Roads Program.

Mr. Chairman, in 1989, I want to reflect back. In the District of Bellevue, we had more gravel roads - just about every road in the Bellevue District was a gravel road. At that time the Southwest Arm, St. Jones Within and all that area was included in Bellevue District and the road from Little Heart's Ease to Southport was a gravel road. The road from Hillview to St. Jones Within was a gravel road. The road to Markland was a gravel road. The road to Bellevue was a gravel road. In 1996, when the District of Bellevue was realigned and it took in part of Fortune Bay, the road from Terrenceville to Grand Le Pierre was a gravel road, and the road from Grand Le Pierre to English Harbour East was a gravel road. It had the worst roads of any district in the Province, because for seventeen years the Moores-Peckford Administration did not spend any money whatsoever in Bellevue District, not one cent. This present government, right now, has gone back to the Peckford-Moores Administration days, in that the amount of money that has been spent in Bellevue District - the assessment over in the department will show that Bellevue District has some of the worst roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, they spent a lot of money. Back in 1989, I can tell you, the Member for St. John's North -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's South.

MR. BARRETT: St. John's South. I can tell you, in 1989 there was roughly $4.5 million spent on roads in Bellevue District. In 1989 dollars, Sir. In 1989 dollars, the asphalt was a lot cheaper than it is today. The price of fuel was a lot cheaper. The costs were a lot cheaper than they are today. So, you can get up and say all you like. You were not around. I was around here in 1989 and I know the amount of money that was spent in the district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member can shout and bawl all he likes.

Right now, in my district, there was a lot of work done. Some of the roads that were done earlier, back in the 1970s, now need to be resurfaced. We have a situation right now in my district on the road into Terrenceville. I had a call from the town council and the members of the council in Terrenceville the other day, saying: Mr. Barrett, can you do something about the road going down the hill in Terrenceville because the school bus is coming down there in the daytime and we are terrified because of the slope of the road towards the river, afraid that the school bus is going to tilt over and go out into the river? To me, that is a very serious situation.

I sent an e-mail over to the department requesting that the work be done. It was a serious situation, and I requested that the work be done. I got an e-mail back saying that they had investigated and it was too much to be done by the maintenance crew, that it would have to be included under the Capital Works Program. Lo and behold, on Friday I get a list of the capital roads work in Bellevue District. What did I get? Two culverts on the Fair Haven Road, one on the Little Bay Road up in Fortune Bay, and some resurfacing on the Refinery Road in Come By Chance, for a total of about $250,000 out of the so-called bragged $48 million or $60 million, depending on which person gets up to speak.

To me that is absolutely ridiculous. They are closing the school in English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre and the town council members in Terrenceville are concerned about the kids coming into their community, afraid that the bus is going to tilt over. This government sits there and is able to spend $1.5 million on a Premiers' conference; $1.5 million. Do you know what they are going to do? They are going to have the conference in Corner Brook and St. John's. They are shipping them all into Corner Brook and then they are putting them on chartered aircraft out of Deer lake into St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, a chartered aircraft to take all the delegates from Deer Lake to St. John's, and the kids that are riding the school bus in my district, Mr. Chair, are in a dangerous situation in that the school bus may tilt over on the road. Not only that, Mr. Chair, as it was outlined in the Estimates Committee in Intergovernmental Affairs, not only are they going to transport the delegates to the conferences, but the spouses of the delegates are going to be transported as well. The Premier admitted that in a Telelgram article the week. The spouses are also going to be transported.

I mean, here we have a situation in my district, closing two schools in my district. Not only that, but the road that these kids are going to have to ride on - small kids, five-year-olds, are going to have to get on a bus, go on the road, and the town council in Terrenceville is making representation terrified that the bus is going to fall over.

One thing that the Government House Leader forgot to mention - there is another allocation within the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and it is called road maintenance, Mr. Chairman. I want to do some comparison. In 1989, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador spent $47,946,000 on road maintenance. When we talk about road maintenance we are talking about asphalt to fill in the potholes, we are talking about ditching, we are talking about guardrails, we are talking about ice and snow control, all these other safety conditions. There was $48 million spent in 1989. I wonder what the price of gasoline and fuel was in 1989. I think it was about sixty or seventy cents a litre. What was the price of salt, I wonder, in 1989? What were the wages being paid in 1989 compared to now? Quite a difference, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inflation.

MR. BARRETT: Inflation.

Forty-eight million dollars, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, was spent on road maintenance in 1989. Do you know how much was spent in 1990, the second year of the Liberal Government? There was $49 million spent on road maintenance. In 1991, there was $48 million spent. Actually, just about $49 million. In 1992, $49 million was spent on road maintenance.

Mr. Chairman, to put it in perspective: We talk about the conditions of our roads and we talk about the rutting on the Trans-Canada and everything else. Do you know how much was spent in 2004 on maintenance on all of our highways in Newfoundland and Labrador? Forty-six million dollars was spent on road maintenance. In 1989, the Liberal Government spent $48 million.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: By leave?

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. BARRETT: It is interesting, Mr. Chairman - in 2005, do you know what this government spent on road maintenance? They spent $44 million on road maintenance; $44 million. The Liberal Government, back in 1989, spent $48 million, $4 million less in the year 2005 than was spent on road maintenance in 1989. And they get up here tonight and brag about all the money they are spending on roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. Shame on you! Shame on you!

I will be back again in a short while, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a great pleasure to stand in this hon. House this evening, even though it is getting late.

MR. JOYCE: We would like to know how many people are going to show up to your dinner.

MR. HICKEY: Well I tell you one thing, Eddie, you are not going to be invited. I say to the member, you will not be invited to my dinner.

MR. SULLIVAN: Take it back, John. The Member for Bay of Islands. Take it back.

MR. HICKEY: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MS JONES: To the Member for Lake Melville, I was invited twice. Your office sent me an invitation twice. They even sent me an invitation to buy a piece in your booklet. I offered to do it, but I found out it was cancelled because you could not get enough people to show up to your dinner.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, the Member for the Bay of Islands can shoot all the barbs over here, but this is a very important debate, I say to the member.

I understand why the member over there - they are all in a tizzy there tonight. What a difference in a week. Last week we saw nothing but the spilling of red blood over there, and then you look at the Liberal world of la-la land, leaderless, rudderless, unpopular and lame. The list of descriptives goes on and on. Liberals could be close to distinction in many parts of the Province.

This week you can see the decorum in the House, you can see it there. We have the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who very quickly gets to her feet and talks passionately about her issues. She wants to be the leader. We have the Opposition House Leader over there, and you can see a very big change in him this week because he wants to be the leader. We are going to stay here all night to find out which one of these two are going to be the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about some of the important issues. The Leader of the Opposition made a couple of points here tonight and I want to correct him on a couple of issues that he raised here this evening. I want to talk about my own district of Lake Melville. I want to talk a little bit about Labrador, as I always like to do.

When we talk about roads, Mr. Chairman, let me say this, the roads - I will just take a short piece of road from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Northwest River. It is about a twenty-five or thirty minute ride. I can tell you, under the former Administration it was a joke that you had to buy Gravol before you rode the road, because there were that many bumps and ruts and everything in it, Mr. Chair. Absolutely, totally disgusting! Then they would come in and do a little patch of 100 metres here, and the next year they would come in and do another 100 metres there, and what we have, Mr. Chairman, is a road bed that did not get any maintenance, did not get any work done on it for a good many years. We are going to be looking at that, and our government is looking at that, Mr. Chairman.

Talk about roads! I remember when we had to shame the government. I remember my good friend from Labrador West, who was on his feet many times in this House - I was the Mayor of the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay at the time and I know he raised it when it came to the cell phone, satellite phone system. We had to shame the previous Liberal Administration to get the satellite phone system that we have today between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador City.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about Mealy Mountain Collegiate - and I will say this and give credit where credit is due. Yes, the previous Liberal Administration built the Mealy Mountain Collegiate school. Just after we took over, I went to a function up there one time, and I will say to you, Mr. Chairman, it was embarrassing to go into a brand new school gymnasium and here were all the kids sitting on the floor because they had forgotten to put the bleachers into the budget. We had to go to the then Department of Works, Services and Transportation Minister to get $70,000, and I am happy to say that now the kids of Mealy Mountain Collegiate have some bleachers to sit on when they have events in their school.

Auditorium: We want to talk about the auditorium. I mean, I spent the first two years here, Mr. Chairman, with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on her feet talking about the auditorium, the Member for Torngat Mountains talking about the auditorium, everybody talking about the auditorium, but what they did not mention is that they did not put the money in place. There was no money from the federal government, there were no talks from the federal government. I want to commend the Minister of Labrador Affairs here this evening because under his leadership we have been able to do the auditorium, and I am happy to say it was this government that put our money where out mouth is. We did it and it is going to be built in Happy Valley-Goose Bay next to Mealy Mountain Collegiate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Let's talk about the hospital, another piece of infrastructure. I will say to members opposite, I will give you full credit for half of it, because it would never have been built if it was not for Inco coming in with their $15 million. The government of the day put $15 million and Inco put in the other $15 million. That is how we got our hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Let me say this: When it comes to schools, the first investment in a school since probably the early 1950s when Peacock school was built, was Mealy Mountain Collegiate. All the other schools, under the Liberal Administration, were hand-me-downs from the Americans and the American Base. That is what infrastructure we had in our community in our region.

When we talk about Voisey's Bay, and they talk about over across the OA here, about how Voisey's Bay was their project. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, Voisey's Bay is a good project, but I can tell you what, I would have loved to have seen our Premier today and this government in negotiations with Voisey's Bay Nickel on that project, and we would see a very different project today with bigger benefits coming to the Province than what we are seeing from what they signed over, which was another giveaway, I can say to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Let's talk about the Lower Churchill, something I love to talk about because I was involved in the hydro developments in Labrador for many, many years. I grew up on them, both the Upper Churchill and Twin Falls power, and now, God willing, we will see the Lower Churchill come forward in the near future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in your time.

MR. HICKEY: I say you, yes we will see it in our time. I will say we will see it in our time, I say to my hon. friend over across the way, because we have leadership now. We are not going to give it away, we are not going to go up and call a big press conference up in Churchill Falls and leave out the Labrador Métis. I have to say to my good friend, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, where were you with the Métis? She puts out this press release last week saying the Labrador Métis must be involved. Well, that is fine, but where were the Labrador Métis? Where were the Innu Nation when the then Premier Tobin and Bouchard went to Churchill Falls and spent all the money. They had the press and had everything all ready to flow without any consultation with the people of Labrador.

I can tell you, because I was the mayor of the day when they brought us into a room at the Aurora Hotel in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on this big pressure cooker meeting, everybody coming in from the Coast of Labrador. You know, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair had her people there, the Member for Torngat Mountains had his people there, and we were going to push this through. Well let me say this, Mr. Chairman, we did not push it through because it was another giveaway. I can tell you, I am happy to say that we stood in our place for our community and for Labrador to ensure that project was not given away, like the Upper Churchill.

On another couple of points, while I have him here, when we talk about the Lower Churchill, I am happy to say that we were a part of it last week. Myself and the Minister of Natural Resources were in Happy Valley-Goose Bay when our Premier talked about us doing it alone. There is a new pride in this Province. There is new leadership and there is a new commitment to this Province, I say.

I say to the hon. members over on the other side, you can throw all the barbs you like, but at the end of the day the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I think the polls certainly indicate it - are more than pleased with the leadership from this Premier, from this government, and the commitments that we are making. We are not talking about it, we are doing it here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is exactly where we have to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chairman, when we talk about health care, one of the issues that is dear to my heart and dear to many people in Labrador is the issue of the long-term health care facility. I can tell you, it is an absolute travesty for families having to leave Labrador and having to leave their communities to move away because they did not have a kidney dialysis unit in Labrador. There wasn't a long-term health care facility in Labrador.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Lake Melville that his time has elapsed.

MR. HICKEY: By leave, Mr. Chair, to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, just in closing, I want to say that this government under this Premier has shown great leadership here to the people of Labrador. I can say to either one of the members from Labrador, that we have put more infrastructure money into Labrador in this Budget than has been done in their entire time when they were in government, I say to you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: You do not like the truth, but you are going to have to face the music.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was not going to join the debate, although I do want to thank the Member for Lake Melville for an invitation to his dinner that I received by fax.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for an invitation to his of which I accepted, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: I understand the Member for Bay of Islands actually offered to put an ad in his booklet, but they turned it down because they did not like the content.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in the debate. It has strayed quite considerably from the tobacco tax, but I was interested in hearing over the last couple of hours the various members in the House bragging about what their governments had done in paving roads and infrastructure. I am prompted to speak for a minute or two by the comment from the Minister of Health and Community Services, who referred to the Member for Bellevue as being long in the tooth. I thought I must be, at least, as long in the tooth as the Member for Bellevue, because I was in this House when a previous Administration, led by Clyde Wells, was dealing with the former Tory Opposition. I am starting to hear - it is like a film repeating itself. I remember Premier Wells getting in the House and ranting and roaring at the then Conservative Opposition, talking about how they had spent like drunken sailors, and they had put the Province near bankruptcy, and they had done all of the things that this government is now blaming on the previous Administration. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, I have been here maybe long enough. I have seen this movie before. I guess I can accept the comments of the Minister of Health, that maybe there are some people who are a bit long in the tooth around here, but that is a very familiar story to me.

I do not know how many people were around then. I know the Member for Bellevue was around during those days. It was a very similar speech. They talked about the amount of money that Peckford had spent and the public debt going up by leaps and bounds, the Sprung Greenhouse, the failure to look after the public sector pensions, the unfunded pension liability, and all of those things that they blamed on the previous government which required them to act in restraint. It is so familiar, that when this government came into office one of the first things they did was talk about what a state of finances the Liberals had put the government in over the number of years. I guess, Mr. Chairman, what we are really hearing tonight is the details of all the money spent by the previous Liberal Administration and then by the current Administration.

You would not know, Mr. Chairman, but, by listening to this, that the only thing people came here for was to spend money on roads and to pave roads in their district. This is something that goes way back to the first time I ever heard about election pavement, as they used to call it. In the days and weeks before the election, Smallwood had a reputation for bringing out all the tractors, all the paving machines and all the tractors, every road in the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: The polling pavement.

MR. HARRIS: The polling pavement. Oh, they have a new kind of pavement now.

I was wondering, when I heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo talk about the pavement being taken up on a particular road in Gander, where they were putting it down, if they were taking it up in his district and putting it down somewhere else. Is that what they are doing now?

MR. REID: I do not know, boy. It is up.

MR. HARRIS: It is up. The pavement is gone.

MR. REID: It is gone. It was there last week, it is not there this week.

MR. HARRIS: That is done in the name of road improvement, is it?

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: So, we have a new way of doing business.

I just wanted to comment on that, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is getting very late at night and I do not know how long we are going to stay here.

MS JONES: Family friendly.

MR. HARRIS: Family friendly. I understand that my colleague here from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has a speech to make on family friendly hours before she goes home tonight, so I am looking forward to that.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the debate on the Tobacco Tax Act amendment has been very interesting. There was even some mention of tobacco tax from time to time, but we are now on to the pavement. I am sorry the Member for Lake Melville was cut off because he was telling us how he built the Upper Churchill and now he is going to build the Lower Churchill, he did such a great job on the Upper Churchill; and wondering where the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was when all that was going on. I gather I have interrupted the opportunity for the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to speak in response to that. I will take my seat and look forward to hearing what she has to say on this issue.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my hon. colleague, but I say to him, it is never to late to speak, Mr. Chairman. There will always be an opportunity in the House on one bill or another.

I was just wondering, because there was a lot of debate when the Member for Lake Melville was up, about a dinner he was having. I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if there are any charges that can be laid for false advertising of a dinner that does not occur. I had two faxes come into my office, two invitations to a dinner from his office to buy tickets, to take out an ad in a booklet and so on and so on. I do not know if there is anything that you can do when it is false advertising like that, getting one's hopes up about going to an event that does not occur.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the Member for Lake Melville would have wanted me to attend his dinner, because in two-and-a-half years he has never stood on his feet in the House of Assembly without mentioning me at least once. Let me say, he mentions me with great fondness in his speeches. I know that my friend, the Member for Lake Melville, would have wanted me at the dinner; there is no doubt about that.

When he got up to speak he started to quote from an article, and I think it was an editorial that was in Telegram, talking about the Liberals and the Liberal Party in the Province today and saying that Liberals are almost extinct. Well I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we on this side of the House are no where near it. If anything, we are more vibrant, we are more energetic and we are more ready to go than we ever have been, I say to you. Absolutely! It is only one minute after midnight and I can guarantee you we are on our feet for the long haul. There is no doubt about that. So, not to worry, there is lots of vibrance, lots of energy over here, lots of spunk still to come; no doubt about it.

Anyway, he talked about VBNC, and I find it so ironic because every time tonight that the issue around the hospital in Goose Bay came up, a Liberal government initiative, done when my hon. colleague, Ernie McLean, was sitting in the Cabinet as part of the Liberal government and built this hospital in Goose Bay in partnership with the Voisey's Bay Nickel company, it is so ironic that tonight the Member for Lake Melville wanted to jump up at every opportunity and point out VBNC's, Inco's contribution to Labrador, but yet can find nothing good to say about the company, nothing good to say about the project that is going on up in Labrador; not a word. In fact, he went as far tonight as to say that he wished the deal had not even been done, so that it could be negotiated under his current day government. That is what he said tonight.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville, on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, that is not what I said. That is indeed not what I said. I can tell you that is not what I said. What I said was, if that project had been done under this Premier and this leadership, our Province would have got a better deal than what we have today. That is what I said.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am really pleased that the member clarified that for me, because it would have made a huge difference in what I am about to say right now, and that is, Mr. Chairman: This is a man who is standing and saying that it would have been a better deal, a member standing and saying it would be a better deal under his Administration.

When you look at the deals that have been done by the member's government opposite - take away the Atlantic Accord, Mr. Chairman, let's put that on hold for a minute now. Let's put the Atlantic Accord on hold for just a minute now. No, we are just going to put it on hold here for just a minute now. I am going to say this, show me the other deals that have been done? Show them to me. Is he talking about a deal with Voisey's Bay Nickel like was done with Abitibi-Price? Is that the kind of deal? One where a company folds its lot and leaves the Province laying off hundreds of workers, is that a deal? Is that a deal with Abitibi-Price? Was that a deal, Mr. Chairman? Was that a deal or not? That was the Premier of the Province. The Premier of the Province was in charge of that file. He was the man everyday hitting the media with regard to the negotiations and what was happening and what was not happening. At the end of the day, do we have a company that is operating a pulp and paper mill in Stephenville? Do you know what I heard today, Mr. Chairman? That, in fact, it is being dismantled. That is what I heard today, or over the weekend, that in fact it is being dismantled altogether. So, is that the kind of deal that you want to talk about?

Let's talk about the deal with NAPE and CUPE. Let's talk about that deal. When you go out in the parking lot, thousands of workers, public servants on strike in this Province, out in the parking lot with a piece of paper negotiating a deal. Meeting with the union leader in the back lots of gas stations in the middle of the night. At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, what happened? The regressive tactics of negotiations of the government had failed because union workers were not prepared to concede to regressive tactics and having sick benefits cut and vacation pay cut and so on, and what happened? They were legislated back to work. That was the deal. Boy, that was a great deal wasn't it? Today, 30,000 of them - is it 30,000 between the two unions? - gets ordered back to work. That was a deal wasn't it?

Let's talk about the deal with FPI for a minute, an ongoing saga of FPI. Now that is going to be some book to write for the classroom, isn't it? That is going to be a great chapter of history, I guarantee you, in this Province, no doubt about it. FPI, the faltered fish company that caused rural Newfoundland to be emptied, deserted, left. That is going to be some chapter, isn't it? That is a great deal. That is a wonderful deal that was done by the Williams government when they were in office. That is the deals that the member is talking about. Well, I have not seen it. What I have seen is communities emptying out, communities of people leaving.

I know that members will get up and they will talk about out-migration that occurred back in the late 1980s and 1990s and on up through. Yes, I do not dispute the figures, not one bit, because I know what happened in the Province at that time. It was the collapse of the ground fishery. With the collapse of the ground fishery and the stocks depleted, people had no other choice only to leave this Province. What we have today is not necessarily a collapse of the fishery, but we have a corporate takeover of a company where we are seeing businesspeople harnessing the fish quotas off our shore that belong to the people and putting the money in their back pockets and leaving this Province. That is what we have. Quite a little different tale, I say to the members opposite, quite a different tale if you ask me.

That is not a great deal. I do not see anything good in that. Exporting fish and letting companies, big corporations, hang on to fish quotas that the people are crying out for, desperate to have. I cannot believe that the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans happens to be from this Province and is allowing any corporation in this country, or in this Province that is doing business, to walk away with a fish quota and leaving communities with no work. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that the government is not holding his feet to the fire on it and holding the rest of the members in the federal government's feet to the fire on it, but is prepared to let all of this run its course.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not see any good deal in this. I bet the people in Harbour Breton might have jumped for joy for a few days when they thought Bill Barry was coming in and restoring everything to its glory days, but I guess they are finding out there are no glory days left there, is it? No glory days left for that plant since FPI took off and took the quotas with them. It is going to be hard for any fish company. I do not care how good Bill Barry is, and I have no fault with the man, but I guarantee you, it is hard for any company to operate and be productive if they do not have fish quotas. The government can pat him on the back all they like, and they can make all the commitments to the people that they want, and they might want to do the best they can in their heart and soul, but if they do not have the fish quotas, at the end of the day, there is not a whole lot they can do. There is not a whole lot they can do, so I do not see the good deal in that, and I am sure the people in Harbour Breton do not see it all as a good deal today that they might have thought it was a few weeks back, because many of them have had to move on. Whether it is temporary or for the long term, they have had to move on. They have been forced to, and I think we have seen that on the news.

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MS JONES: May I have a minute to clue up, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, I say to the Deputy Premier.

The other one I wanted to talk about, just for a minute, is Hebron-Ben Nevis, when you are talking about making good deals. Good, bad or indifferent, it does not matter, Madam Chair. The only thing that matters is the impression right now that has been cast in terms of our Province and the oil industry, and those things take a long time to repair.

I am not saying that the Premier was right or wrong in putting the demands on the table that he put on the table but, at the end of the day, no matter how sour a negotiation might be, you do not just tell a company to take a hike, Madam Chair. You do not just do that. It may be sour negotiations, it may not be what you want, but it is the determination to work at it to try and make it happen, and that is where I am disappointed on this one. That is where I am disappointed, because I think that the Premier should have worked harder and I think that he should have fought harder with this company to try and make this deal happen.

Madam Chair, at the end of the day not only did the company end up leaving and exiting the Province on a very sour note but they exited, Madam Chair, to the rest of the world where they are tarnishing our image in the oil industry. That, Madam Chair, is what I find very intolerable and unacceptable.

I think that, in the long term, we are going to see some repercussions of it. We are. I hope we don't. I would love to see this project go ahead, and I think it can bring a tremendous amount of benefits to the Province. I would be more than remiss if I did not say that tonight, because I think there are a lot of benefits that can accrue from it, just like we have seen from other developments in the oil industry, with Terra Nova, Hibernia and White Rose and so on. I think it can happen with this, but there has to be an approach as well to negotiations in terms of trying to reach a deal and a compromise. So far, you remove the Atlantic Accord - which was a tactic of backing the federal government into a wall, backing them into a corner, where they could not get out of it. They had no other choice only to cave in, which is a good thing for us, I can say. That tactic worked with the federal government, but it is obvious it is not working with everyone else, and that is why we haven't seen any other deals. Even though the member would like to think that there could be lots of them, they are not there, they don't exist.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am going to rise the Committee. I move that the Committee rise, report progress - the significant progress we have made on the Tobacco Tax Act - and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that I rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM 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): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee sit again?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

I want to move second reading of Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.

I think we will hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs on that particular piece of legislation.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a long bill, just a few clauses here, but it is a very important piece of legislation that we would like to get through in this sitting of the House. This legislation is important to the cities and the towns across the Province because it can directly affect the amount of revenue that they will or will not receive next year.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act, will change the standard for assessing certain properties for market value through reproduction cost, less physical depreciation.

A special purpose property has limited market with a unique physical design, special construction materials, or a lay out that restricts its utility. An example of some of these types of businesses would be a tank farm, a refinery, airport, lighthouse, smelter, marina, these types of businesses. Owners and commercial tenants of special purpose property will see their assessed value at the reproduction cost, less physical depreciation. For example, if a business was put in place twenty years ago and it cost $20 million to build it, today to reproduce that, say, $20 million, the assessed value minus the depreciation would be, say, $3 million, the assessment would be on the $3 million not the $20 million.

The reason why we are bringing this forward, of course, is, there has been a court case for a business within the City of St. John's. The courts ruled that the assessments being done on this given piece of property were not accurate, were not fair to the business, and the City of St. John's, of course, now would lose a great amount of revenue. If this is applicable to other municipalities across the Province, then, Mr. Speaker, the amount of revenue that the municipalities would receive would be considerably less. If the revenues are down because of this ruling, well then, of course, the municipalities would have to pick it up elsewhere, so they would have to increase their taxes in other areas of their municipalities.

Why it is important to get it done this spring, Mr. Speaker, is because the assessments that will be done next fall would have to be based on the ruling, and it will have a very negative impact on all the municipalities across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said, whereby the municipalities could lose revenue and they would have to pick it up and pass it on maybe to the taxpayers or the residential areas within the given municipalities. There are some municipalities in this Province where they have signed agreements with certain businesses that pay a large amount of taxes to the towns or to the municipalities. Those towns that have signed agreements, Mr. Speaker, these would not change. This would not impact the signed agreements, the towns still could have a grant in lieu of taxes, if they so wish.

Basically it is a short bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is an important one. I think the municipalities would certainly support this. I know the City of St. John's would support it.

I did have a conversation with my critic opposite, and I am sure he is going to have his say on it, and the Leader of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit now on second reading, and if you have any questions I will do my best to answer those questions.

Thank you.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is right. He did call me this morning on this piece of legislation, and it is my understanding that this piece of legislation is brought to the House as a result of a ruling by Judge Osborne here in St. John's, where a particular piece of property was assessed and he, for some reason - I am just looking at the law. The strict letter of the law decided that the property itself or assessment would just be the building and not the machinery and everything else that is associated with it. If that is the situation, obviously this has to be corrected, not only for the City of St. John's but it could also be for the Town of Gander. For example, they have an airport that could be assessed at, say, $20 million, the runways, the machineries and everything they have there. If you take the strict letter of the law and they are just going to assessed the building, if the building would come in at $1 million and you are about $19 million short, the Town of Gander would then have to pass it on to it's residents to make up for that particular loss. I can see that happening.

What it really does is give the municipalities and the city the assurance that the piece of legislation we are doing here upholds what they have been doing, and not being shortchanged so that their people, their individual taxpayers, would not have to pay higher assessments on their property to compensate for the loss.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I can support that particular amendment that is being brought in by the minister.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 31 regarding An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this bill arises out of an unfavourable interpretation of the previous legislation, or the unamended legislation, and a particular approach taken by the courts in terms of interpretation. I think it needs to be said, that the courts, when interpreting taxation legislation, recognize that they interpret it quite often, if there is an ambiguity, that the ambiguity is resolved often in favour of the taxpayer as opposed to the taxing agent. It appears that this particular ruling by the court was unexpected by both the government, I suppose, and the taxing agency. It appears that it would lead to a lot of property that was previously taxed, and ought to be taxed as part of the assessment roles of a municipality or the City of St. John's - and I think in this particular case it was the City of St. John's property that was under consideration. As the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune has said, this could impact on municipalities across the Province.

I am not going to quarrel with the wording here. The term special purpose property does not sort of jump out at you as having a really distinct meaning, but the legislation attempts to give some significant meaning to it, a specialized meaning to that, which I assume that a lot of thought has gone into, as to how this type of particular property ought to be categorized and defined in the legislation.

I think one of the examples that has been given by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune is the Gander airport which consists of a whole series of runways and a building. I guess, if all you can look at is the building, and the fact that the runways have pavement on them, you cannot value those because they may not have a market value, seems to me to be a rather artificial way of looking at what, in all accounts, is an extremely valuable property. If it is going to be taxed based on its value, that value obviously has to take into account the improvements that have been made to it. Consideration should be given to that.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the principle here that property should be taxed and assessed based upon its value, whether you call it market value or reproduction value or replacement value, some method has to be used to define that and give an equivalent value to various kinds of properties regardless of the nature of that property.

I support the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I think it really retains the status quo prior to this interpretation being given to existing legislation. I do not think there is any concern in principle in terms of the public policy of taxing properties so as to ensure that there is a fair relationship between the value of properties based on their cost, in this case their cost and depreciation, in other cases on their actual market value.

Having said, Mr. Speaker, we support the legislation and would like to facilitate its speedy passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

I would like to basically thank the hon. members for their words and support of this piece of legislation. I know the municipalities in the Province will certainly appreciate their support and they will certainly benefit from this piece of legislation getting speedy approval through the House of Assembly tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And St. John's Assessment Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK (Noel): A bill, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act, Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the amendments just debated on Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.

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 Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 1 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 to 4 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 31 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 31without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 31 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, with leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move third reading of Bill 31.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 31 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

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

Before adjourning on this parliamentary Monday, I do want to, in accordance with the Standing Orders, give notice of what the private member's resolution will be for Wednesday. I will leave a copy. It is going to be introduced by the Member for Gander, and I will just read it for the record:

WHEREAS the primary beneficiaries of the development of the energy resources of the Lower Churchill River should be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND WHEREAS our government is investing in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to give our Crown corporation the leverage to pursue energy generation opportunities that will bring new industrial developments and economic wealth to Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND WHEREAS our government has determined, through a rigorous assessment of proposals short-listed from the Expression of Interest and Proposals process, that the best option to develop the Lower Churchill for the maximum benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is an initiative led by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro;

AND WHEREAS a bold new attitude is at play in Newfoundland and Labrador by which we affirm that Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed capable of leading the process to develop our energy resources;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House of Assembly support the Province's decision, as announced on May 8, 2006, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will take the lead on the potential development of the energy resources of the Lower Churchill river system.

I will leave that for the Clerk.

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

MR. PARSONS: I think leave is required for that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I understand there was a certain place that it was to be called on the Order Paper today.

We are going to grant leave anyway, regardless. I just want to make the point that there have been occasions here when other people have played slick with the rules, but we will not do that. We will consent to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under Standing Order 63.(3) it says, "On the Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a Private Member's motion is to be debate, the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House the Private Member's motion to be debated on that Wednesday."

On the matter of whether it should be done in the regular routine business section, our Standing Orders are silent on it.

I do believe there is an agreement that, if leave were required, it has been given, so therefore we can proceed?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is only quoting the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are silent as to whether it should be exclusively under routine business or whether it can be given at some other time in the parliamentary day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly happy to also give leave to this going ahead on Wednesday, but my understanding of that particular order is that it is an opportunity for the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader to give notice of which motion already on the Order Paper was going to be debated on the Wednesday. There still has to be a Notice of Motion given at the proper time during the day so that if there had been a Notice of Motion, for example, under Notices of Motion today, and the motion had been read out to the House at that time, then that Notice of Motion would be properly granted for Wednesday and all we would be having now is the Government House Leader advising the House which of the several Notices of Motion that may have already been given are going to be debated.

My understanding is that we are skipping a step here, but I do not have any problem, as well, granting leave to do that.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not a big deal, from my perspective, either way, but, according to the Standing Orders of the House, I believe I followed the rules, I say to members, and here is what it says: On the Monday before the Wednesday - which this is, qualifies as the parliamentary Monday before Wednesday - in which a Private Members' motion is to be debated, the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce - it does not say give notice; it says, shall announce - to the House the Private Member's motion to be debated on that Wednesday.

That is what the Standing Orders say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not going to get into a big debate on it. How the Speaker rules, if he rules it should happen under Notices of Motion, then from here on in it will be done that way. That is my only point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under ordinary circumstances, we do have a section under routine business called Notices of Motion. The only point the Chair is making is that, in prior sessions, notice has been given at other times; for example, the notice to sit late on the succeeding day.

In this particular matter I do understand leave has been granted, but the Chair will look at the matter in some detail. For the moment, now, the Chair would rule that consent has been granted and perhaps the House could proceed to the next item of business.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

With that, I do now move the adjournment until 1:30 tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 16, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 16, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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