MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin our proceedings this afternoon, the Chair wishes to rule on a point of order raised by the Government House Leader on Tuesday, May 9, relative to a petition presented to the House by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. The Chair thanks all members who made presentations on the matter.

Standing Orders section 90-97 govern the presentation of petitions in our House. Section 91.(1) indicates: "A petition may be either printed or written and if more than 3 petitioners sign it, at least 3 signatures must appear on the page containing the prayer of the petition."

In her presentation, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans spoke as follows, quote: "I am giving this petition, again, petitioning this government, on behalf of the people of the Buchans area." Our Standing Orders are silent as to whether or not the petitioners must, in fact, be residents of the community or region noted in the prayer. All petitions must be reviewed by the Table Officers prior to presentation and, in this instance, under review, the petition presented by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans met that directive.

Points of order are designed to bring to the attention of the presiding officer instances where a member believes the rules have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during proceedings. In the matter under review, the Speaker is satisfied that there has been no variations on the accepted practices of our House and rules there is no point of order.

This afternoon we would like to welcome some very special visitors to our gallery. To my left, we have some very special visitors, five students from Amos Comenius Memorial School, Hopedale, in the District of Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: They are in Grades 8, 9 and Level I. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms Debbie Harding. A very special welcome to our House.

To my right, we have thirty-two Level I and II students from Lumsden School Complex in the District of Bonavista North. These students are accompanied by their teachers: Mr. Darren Ellis, Mrs. Elvina Goodyear and Mrs. Iris Darcy.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, joining us today are the Provincial Apprentice and Certification Board and the Chair of the Board, Mr. Rex Cotter. I welcome the Board and the Chair to the House as well this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in the House to congratulate one of our fellow members, a colleague and a friend, Wally Andersen, the MHA for Torngat Mountains District.

During the week of March 23-28 of this year, the annual Youth Symposium was held in Makkovik. Attendees were Aboriginal representatives from the coastal communities of Northern Labrador and the Upper Lake Melville area who get together to discuss the issues of the day, experience their cultural background and work together for the preservation of their ethnic roots. Wally has never missed one of these symposiums since his election to the House of Assembly in 1996. This year, for his dedication to the youth of Labrador and his never ending support to all their endeavours, Wally was made a lifetime member of the Youth Symposium.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the youth of the north coast communities recognize Wally for all for which he stands. He works tirelessly on their behalf, attends the majority of functions, donates financially to their community and to youth celebrations and in whatever way he can to ensure the success of these events. If a school comes to him with a request for materials or funding, he will do his utmost to secure the resources to ensure the children of the north coast are given every opportunity to receive the best education for which they are entitled. He was instrumental in assisting the youth and the RCMP to establish the youth centre in Rigolet - a facility that has brought much enjoyment to the youth of that community.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, Wally himself is a proud member of the Inuit community, and he is equally proud of the young people of his district.

I rise today to congratulate my colleague, Wally Andersen, on his selfless dedication to the young people of Northern Labrador and I ask all members to join me in congratulating him on this great honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair should never comment, but the Chair will say that it is the third time this House has given this hon. gentleman a standing ovation, which is significant.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate Ms Denise Pike from New Harbour, Trinity Bay who is this year's recipient of the Public Education Advocacy Award, which will be formerly presented to her in Ottawa in July.

Mr. Speaker, Denise - who is in the gallery today - is the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils and was nominated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teacher's Association for this award.

Mr. Speaker, this is quite a prestigious award presented annually by the Canadian Teachers' Federation to an individual outside the teaching profession who have greatly contributed to our education system.

All across Canada, nominations are filed on behalf of individuals who promote the advancement of public education, provides support to teachers, and advocate on behalf of our children.

Mr. Speaker, Denise who, quite familiar with the education system, as a mother of three children, has voluntarily worked for the betterment of education in our Province. Denise has served on several committees and has been the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Student Councils for the past six years.

Mr. Speaker, the other day, I read a comment by Denise when referring to the role of school councils wherein she was quoted as saying, "You have to be respectful of the position and have to carry it out with integrity."

Mr. Speaker, I believe this comment to be quite appropriate, as I know Denise and I can certainly say she is a distinguished model for this role and personifies integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all members join with me today in extending congratulations to Denise on winning the Public Education Advocacy Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Victoria Ralph, Carbonear's Junior Female Athlete of the Year and a Premier's Athletics Award winner in recognition of her athletic excellence among the athletes of this Province.

Of all the sports in which Victoria participates, including wrestling, running, basketball, soccer and badminton, wrestling is probably her most successful. Victoria is a tough wrestler who is a steady performer, not only at provincial and regional levels but at the national level as well.

Mr. Speaker, recently she won gold medals at the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games, the 2006 High School Provincials, the 2006 Provincial NLAWA Championships, and the 2006 Atlantic CAWA Championships where she was named outstanding wrestler.

Victoria is an accomplished runner who is one of the best in the Province for her age group. According to the Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Athletic Association she was ranked first provincially in 2005 at the ten kilometer road race for females.

Mr. Speaker, the list of accomplishments go on and on and on. Being a busy athlete in the community requires a lot of time, but it doesn't seem to bother Victoria as she managed to keep her academic average at 97 per cent while attending St. Francis Junior High School during the 2005-2006 school year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Victoria Ralph on her outstanding accomplishments and wish her the very best.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the achievement of Cadet Sergeant Samantha Batstone. Samantha, a fifteen-year-old resident of New-Wes-Valley, recently separated herself from her peers by completing the Army Cadet National Star Certification Exam with the highest grade in the Province. Her overall mark of 91.8 per cent placed her at the top of a very impressive list of 154 cadets who attempted the exam.

The exam, based on four years of cadet training, consisted of a written test, a day of teaching, a physical fitness test, and a skills test in map, compass and bushcraft. This is a test of intelligence, strength, endurance and creativity. To excel at this exam, a person must possess a wide range of abilities and talents; and, by completing the exam with the highest grade, Samantha showed that she can hold her own with the very best.

To acknowledge her impressive achievement, the Newfoundland and Labrador branch of the Army Cadet League of Canada presented Samantha with a gold watch. The watch was presented to Samantha on May 6, 2006, at the Annual Ceremonial Review of 2910 Lions Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps of Badger's Quay. This was the thirty-fourth annual inspection of the corps, and it would be impossible to congratulate Samantha without also acknowledging the truly tremendous efforts put forth by that organization over the past thirty-four years.

Samantha is another impressive member of an exceptional group of young people who have benefitted greatly from their time in 2910 Lions Cadet Corps. With her recent accomplishment, Samantha has upheld a tradition of excellence and shown that she has the potential to be one of the best.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Cadet Sergeant Samantha Batstone on her recent accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize a group of Grade 5 students from my district on winning the first "Fit for School" competition for the Western School District.

A Grade 5 class of Templeton Academy in Meadows and their teacher, Ms Joy Burt, who is a legend in athletics in Newfoundland and Labrador, has won a grant sponsored by the Community Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador. The competition encouraged students to come up with their own solutions to the high obesity rates in the schools of the Province.

Ms Burt's class will use the funds to implement a ten-week program which incorporates dance, nutrition and art lessons. Their program, "Groovin and Choosin", was chosen because it actively includes many of the outcomes of the Grade 5 physical education, health and science curriculum, involving activities of exercise, eating and art in a fun way to get young people interested in fitness. The outcomes will be shared with all elementary and primary students in the school.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations to these students and their teacher on this accomplishment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Randy and Judy Wiseman on opening a fun new business in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, called Glo to the Extreme. Their grand opening is scheduled for June 10. I had the extreme pleasure in visiting their establishment on Saturday past and had the most fun I have had in a long time.

They have opened a unique indoor glo in the dark, 18-hole, 5,000 square feet, total black light effects miniature golf course. It is designed for all ages and group sizes. Because it is an indoor recreation activity, it will be year round fun for everyone.

Statistics Canada states Grand Falls-Windsor is a popular town for retirement. An indoor miniature golf course will certainly be a great entertainment for our seniors, as well as all ages.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues in this House, please join with me in congratulating the Wisemans on their confidence in rural Newfoundland to begin a new business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed, I do believe I may have been a little premature in welcoming one group to the House. It has now come to my attention that the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board and their Chair, Mr. Rex Cotter, have now arrived in the House, and we welcome you to our House this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform members of the House that my department has approved seven new Junior Exploration Assistance contracts so far this fiscal year, for a total amount of just over $730,000. These contracts represent a total work commitment of $2.4 million for mineral exploration activity in the Province this year.

This funding is made possible through the Province's Mineral Incentive Program, which received an additional $1 million in this year's provincial Budget. At $2.5 million this year, it is the largest budget in the program's history, as we talked about.

Mr. Speaker, $1.9 million of this year's Mineral Incentive Program has been earmarked for junior exploration and prospecting, which are critical elements in Newfoundland and Labrador's mining industry. The seven Junior Exploration Assistance contracts we are announcing today will support geophysical surveys in Labrador and on the South Coast of the Island, and drilling programs in the Buchans and Port aux Basques regions.

The department has signed contracts with Silver Spruce Resources, Pathfinder Resources, Vinland Resources, Cornerstone Resources, Playfair Mining, and two with Messina Minerals. The contracts range in amounts from $80,000 to $150,000 and we know that, for every dollar invested by government, $1.41 of private capital is spent on grassroots exploration.

Mr. Speaker, exploration activity increases the potential for new mine development, which leads to new business and employment opportunities for the people of the Province. Messina Minerals, for example, is making a significant investment in its Tulks South Property in the Buchans-Millertown area as a result of discovering significant amounts of zinc, lead, copper, silver and gold. The company is extremely encouraged by the results of its exploration activity in this Province and is adding three new drill rigs to its operation as I speak.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the contracts we are announcing today, forty-two prospector grants have also been approved so far this fiscal year for a total of $145,550.

Since 2004, 197 prospectors assistance grants have been issued totalling over $600,000 to carry out grassroots and advanced exploration. To date, these grants have led to at least twelve option agreements with junior mining companies, resulting in combined work commitments in excess of $2 million.

During this same period, forty-nine junior exploration assistance grants were awarded totalling over $3.4 million. These resulted in project exploration expenditures in excess of $12.3 million for advanced exploration, diamond drilling, geophysics and geochemical surveys.

Given where the marketplace is for base metals, and with the Mineral Incentive Program, we are investing in economic development and job opportunities that are being created in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all members support the initiative.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It reminds me of the movie Groundhog Day. It seems like every twenty-four hours life repeats itself. I am sure we are here only a couple of days ago when the minister was up touting the advantages and the positive aspects of this program. I am not sure; I don't think the last one was during a polling period, but this one certainly is.

I am very pleased again, and I echo those sentiments of a couple of days ago. I appreciate very much that government has chosen fit now to put money back into the Mineral Incentive Program, a program that was created by the former Liberal Administration, which this government axed in its 2004 Budget. They are finally getting around now to putting some money back into it.

I am very pleased to see that he is up every day now touting this very exciting - and recognizes the benefits of this program. It is, indeed, on a serious note, very good for the Province, it is very good for the mining industry. Every new discovery, of course, if it becomes operational, will no doubt have very positive advantages for whatever area of the Province we happen to make a find in.

I certainly encourage the minister to keep the money that has been going into that program, keep it going there, because these young prospectors and junior companies certainly need the assistance and support in order to - they have the guts and the determination to go out there. They just need a little help in getting underway and getting the exploration done.

I hope we can look back a couple of years from now and say we were as successful in our offshore exploration as we appear to be headed in the right direction onshore.

Again, hats off to the people involved in this industry, and I urge government to keep the money going for this program.

Thank you.

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

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

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

We, too, support the junior exploration assistance program, Mr. Speaker. The potential for development of mines in this Province, with the vastness of the interior of Labrador and on the Island portion of the Province, is very great. It has a huge potential, Mr. Speaker, one that has to be tapped and developed.

Of course, the investment into the junior mining companies that leads to a development, one development, I say to the minister, one development, will pay back more than government can ever contribute to support the junior mining exploration program.

With a development, Mr. Speaker, just one development, with the good paying jobs that are associated with the mining industry, with the secondary business that is required to support it, it leads to a healthy work environment, Mr. Speaker, and anything that can be done to support junior exploration in this Province we certainly are proud to support.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize a young man from Main Brook on the Northern Peninsula. Mark Powell is the Province's winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators annual contest "Test Your Financial IQ." The CSA recently awarded regional winners for every province and two of the territories a cash prize of $750 each.

In order to win this prize, participants ages fifteen to twenty-one had to go online and answer a number of questions about the importance of budgeting, saving and investing. In general, they are encouraged to learn more about financial matters.

This year's "Test Your Financial IQ" contest was another success with over 2,100 contestants. Mr. Speaker, this shows once again that young Canadians are taking a greater interest in their future financial health. I cannot stress enough how important it is for all Canadians to know the benefits of proper budgeting, saving and investing. As with many initiatives, obtaining financial knowledge at a young age is vital to ensuring that more and more adults understand the importance of financial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mark for his success. He is a young man with a bright future. He is currently a student at Mary Simms All Grade School in Main Brook, and he plans to use his prize money towards tuition for his studies at Memorial University.

I am sure that all Members of the House of Assembly will join me in congratulating Mark on being Newfoundland and Labrador's winner of the "Test Your Financial IQ" contest. I wish him all the best for the future.

This contest will be offered again next year, and I encourage all young people to participate to test their financial IQ.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

The members on this side of the House, as well, congratulate Mark as this Province's winner in the annual contest of testing your financial IQ.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, as the minister said, that people do recognize the benefits of budgeting, saving and investing their money. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, too, that in today's challenging times for our young people, having to find employment and create futures for themselves in this Province, we hope, on this side of the House, that they are able to do that here in this Province and that when they are, indeed, budgeting, saving and investing, that they do it right here in Newfoundland and Labrador and not in some other Province.

We, too, Mr. Speaker, want to wish Mark every success in his future, and I hope his future does make sure that it is here in Newfoundland and Labrador and not like a lot of young people who are presently migrating to other provinces.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are very happy to congratulate Mark Powell on his achievement in being one of the winners of this contest of testing your financial IQ, learning about budgeting, saving and investing. It is certainly noteworthy that Mr. Powell is from rural Newfoundland, being from the Northern Peninsula.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Powell and other young people from rural Newfoundland who want to go on to university, like this young man will, will have to learn a lot about budgeting as long as we have a student aid policy in the Province which sees rural students in particular with such huge financial burdens after completing university, that budgeting to try and pay those debts off is going to be difficult.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: It is going to be difficult as long as we have the system that we do, where rural students have to spend a lot more money than urban students to get an education in Newfoundland and Labrador. We would like to see the playing field level so everybody has the same chance of getting out of post-secondary education with a modest debt as opposed to a huge debt that many rural students face.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 this government took the fish plant from James Doyle & Sons in New Ferolle because that company defaulted on a government loan guarantee. The government then turned around and, without a public call for proposals, gave that plant to a company by the name of Ice Cap Fish Company Limited. In 2005, this government renewed the license for Ice Cap even though the company owed Workmen's Compensation thousands of dollars in arrears.

Can the minister tell us today how much money the company owed Workmen's Comp, who the principal owners of the company were, and why he reissued the license even though this company owed the government money?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the fish plant in New Ferolle - there are some inaccuracies in what the member just said. First of all, we didn't take the plant from James Doyle & Sons in 2004. That took place in the late winter and spring of 2005. Ice Cap had entered into a lease arrangement, partnership arrangement, of some sort with James Doyle & Sons Limited in 2003, I believe it was. They operated the plant in 2003 and in 2004. In 2005, because it took so long to get approval through the courts for us to move on our asset in New Ferolle, we were essentially, I believe, into the first week of April at the time. There was considerable pressure from the community and from the workforce in the community, at the time, to have some kind of an arrangement such that the plant could open last year, so we very quickly entered into a one-year arrangement with Ice Cap Fisheries, the owners of which are Dave and Peter Eveleigh. I believe they are the two principals involved in the company. We entered into a one-year arrangement.

Due to some financial problems last summer, we informed the company that we would not be renewing that lease arrangement for this year and went to a public call for proposals which has been essentially concluded now, I believe, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister didn't answer the question that I asked, and that was how much money they owed Workmen's Comp.

Mr. Speaker, we requested information under the Access to Information Act, all copies of correspondence between Ice Cap and the provincial government regarding the plant in New Ferolle. On Friday, we were informed that we could have that information from the Department of Fisheries if we paid seventy dollars. Yesterday we were told to keep our money, that the information would not be given to us.

Can the minister tell us today why an open, accountable and transparent government would deny us this information if there is nothing to hide?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member might appreciate, I am not intimately familiar with the details of what is happening right now in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture as it relates to this file. I can only speak to what happened when I was the minister.

As I just laid out to the member and to the House and to the people, what happened last year happened as I explained it just then. This time last year - or not this time last year, a month before this or so last year - there was considerable pressure, not only from the community and from the workers to enter into an arrangement to see the fish plant in New Ferolle open, but there was also considerable shouting and heckling and questioning from across the floor here in the House of Assembly by members opposite about what we were going to do for the people of New Ferolle, and why hadn't we taken some action in New Ferolle and what have you. At the time, we took very quick action. Were there mistakes made? Undoubtedly, there may well have been. But, at the time, we took the action that we took in order to try and facilitate an opening of the fish plant at New Ferolle under the operation of an operator who had operated for two years previously and who was, at that time, very much supported by the fishermen and plant workers in the region.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the minister did not answer the question again. Maybe the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the Freedom of Information Act, can tell us why we were denied the information.

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that in 2005, while the company Ice Cap held a licence on the plant in New Ferolle, a company by the name of North Atlantic Shellfish paid the employees and purchased the fish from fishermen. It is also our understanding that this company, North Atlantic Shellfish, owed hundreds of thousands of dollars to workman's compensation and, yet, this company was still permitted to operate the plant in New Ferolle.

Can the minister tell us who the principal owners of North Atlantic Shellfish are and how much money they owed workman's compensation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we did a deal last year to try and make sure that an operation continued in New Ferolle. That deal did not work out. Since then, there has been a public process that has been engaged in. A public Request for Proposals was issued. A number of companies in the Province, three or four, if I am not mistaken, responded to that Request for Proposals. The proposals were evaluated by the Fish Processing Licensing Board and a decision has been made on that, as far as I know. That is what happened.

As for the issues that the member raises, I can only say, Mr. Speaker, I am not intimately familiar with the details that he is putting forward here right now. If he is -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: And I say to the member who is heckling from the Bay of Islands in the backbench where he spent all of his life, Mr. Speaker, that if he knows anything about the Cabinet process, all details like this do not come to the Cabinet table. They are dealt with in the department, in many instances.

On this one, Mr. Speaker, I will take the member's questions under advisement. I will endeavour to find an answer from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Justice, and any other relative departments, and report back to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, you should know, you were the minister when the licence was issued. Here we see another example today, no information coming under the Freedom of Information Act. No information coming into the House. Nobody seems to know what is going on around them.

Mr. Speaker, it is also our understanding that the principals of both of these companies, North Atlantic Shellfish and Ice Cap, are both the operators of a plant in Little Bay Islands in the minister responsible for workman's compensation district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is he continuing to issue fish processing licences to these companies while they owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to workman's compensation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as for the issue in Little Bay Islands, it is my understanding, and I could be wrong - I will check this out also - but I do not believe that there has been any licence issued in Little Bay Islands this year thus far. I do not think the renewal application has come in. I do not think that the licence has been issued. I am pretty certain that was the case last week, I am not sure if it is the case this week, but I will also check on that.

As a former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would know, the requirement of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture when it comes to issuing licences, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the operators are in compliance with the Fish Inspection Act; that the facilities are in compliance with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's policies; that the licence renewal application comes in and the licence fee is paid. When those requirements are met, Mr. Speaker, the licence gets issued.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister who was the Minister of Fisheries, if it is something as simple as sending in a fee and getting a licence: Why wasn't the licence given to Cliff Doyle in New Ferolle back in 2004? We get a lot of non answers here in the House of Assembly from a minister who was responsible for issuing licences. He might say that the plant is not in operation today, the question is: Has there been a licence issued for that plant for this year, because we know there was one issued for last year?

Mr. Speaker, this government took the plant in New Ferolle from its original owners because it owed money to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and gave it to another company that currently owes government hundreds of thousands of dollars to workers' compensation; yet, this company or these companies are still permitted to operate in this Province.

I say to the minister: Why the double standard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to find out the answer to that question he can go to Hansard, because I am pretty certain that I answered that question last year as to what happened with Cliff Doyle and James Doyle & Sons, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter was, James Doyle & Sons could not have a licence issued to them because they did not have control of the facility. The facility was leased in a long-term arrangement to Ice Cap Fisheries.

As he would know, being a former minister, the licence has to be issued to the people who will have control of the facility. Mr. Doyle did not have control of the facility; Ice Cap had control of the facility. The licence had to be issued to Ice Cap in the first instance, if it was going to be issued at all.

We could not issue it to Ice Cap because we had a letter from a lawyer, on behalf of creditors who had served judgement on James Doyle & Sons, that if we did anything that would undermine their ability to collect the debt that was outstanding by James Doyle & Sons to these companies then they would very quickly haul us in court. So, Mr. Speaker, we could not do either one of it in order to move it forward because there was $2.2 million lent under that government to James Doyle & Sons.

We demanded payment and forced the operator into receivership, took possession of the asset and entered into a short-term agreement on a lease arrangement with Eveleigh's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, we are getting somewhere. The minister admits that he took the plant from James Doyle & Sons because there was money owing the government on that plant. Yet, he gave the licence to Ice Cap, or North Atlantic shellfish company, who owes Workers' Compensation, who is responsible to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars. When are you going to do the same to those owners of those plants, I say to the minister?

A final question, and it is to the Minister of Fisheries: Can the Minister of Fisheries confirm that he received a political donation from the principal owners of these companies, and that the wife of one of the principal owners of these companies was just selected by the Progressive Conservation Party to sit as their representative on the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is almost too low to even respond to, but I will say this: First of all, we did not give anything to anybody. Unlike them, we did not give $2.2 million to the Eveleighs. We did not give $2.2 million to Ice Cap Fisheries. We did not give a fish plant to Ice Cap Fisheries, like they did with Cliff Doyle; $2.2 million is what they left in the James Doyle operations. That is what happened there.

We entered into a short-term lease agreement. That lease expired on December 31, if I am not mistaken. They have no assets whatsoever as it relates to New Ferolle. The only thing that they have, in my understanding, is the cold storage that they bought from James Doyle & Sons.

As for the plant, as for the licences, right now, if I am not mistaken, they are still in the possession of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador unless they have, in the last little while, been dispensed of through the public process that we went through in the last little while.

As for donations, I am sure that every fish company in Newfoundland and Labrador made a donation to all or one or both, and in most cases both, political parties over the course of the last couple of elections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report released earlier this year raised some serious concerns about government funding for Griffiths Guitar Works. Officials in the Department of Finance and the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development recommended against any additional investment because the loan could not be secured. The loan would not generate additional employment in the Province. The revised business plan from the company was not ready, and existing investors were not willing to put forward more money.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can he confirm that he ignored the advice from officials in these two departments and overruled two ministers when he personally made the decision to put an additional $300,000 of government money into Griffiths Guitar?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can confirm that I overruled the advice of the departments. I did not overrule the advice of the ministers, under any circumstances.

You are very familiar with Griffiths Guitar. You are very familiar with the principal, Chris Griffiths, because I think you were probably minister - I think it was under Mr. Tobin's reign, basically, when Mr. Griffiths started up his business. There was a lot of money put into his business by your government over the series of a couple of years. He was a poster boy for young entrepreneurs in this Province. It was very, very important that he be successful. We wanted to take him to the next leg and we did not want to see this failure as a blemish on the Province. You helped him start his business and we allowed him to continue it.

Yes, I did overrule and I am proud of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has raised concerns about the approach taken here. With this in mind, the Official Opposition filed an Access to Information Request asking for background information to find out more about the questions raised by the Auditor General on the use of these taxpayer dollars.

Our requests were met with stonewalling from government, as one department refused to release any information and another would charge the Official Opposition excessive fees for information that should be readily available.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is so sensitive about the information, that you are insisting the Official Opposition go through the Access to Information to get that particular information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of requests for information in government. I am not aware of any sensitive information as to why any particular information was refused; nor am I aware of any sensitive information in the request by the Leader of the Opposition.

I certainly will undertake to this House that we will look at those requests. I will find out personally as to if there is any problem with it. If there is, in fact, any confidential information that is proprietary commercially to any of these organizations then obviously we cannot do it. I am sure the Member for Grand Bank, and a former minister, is perfectly aware of that.

With regard to the Opposition looking for information, they have to go through a process and a procedure, and that is a normal procedure. If this is being withheld for any other reason, the fact that it is proprietary or something to do with the act, then I would certainly undertake to report back to this House and we will get to the bottom of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the Premier to find a way of ensuring that we do not have to pay for the information, which we are now being charged for.

Mr. Speaker, because of the Auditor General's report there is a cloud of suspicion over this expenditure of taxpayers' dollars and the people of this Province have a right to the information so they can decide for themselves if it was a good use of their money. It would also lift the cloud hanging over Griffiths Guitar.

I ask the Premier: What jobs have been created in this Province as a result of that funding? What repayment schedule did the government arrange with the company, and have they been meeting their payments? Not difficult questions to answer, Mr. Speaker, for a government that claims to be transparent and accountable.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Griffiths Guitar received in the millions of dollars, prior to us coming into office, from the former government and from Atlantic equity investment. It was in the millions. They had private investors into the company, too, and numerous others; it is several million dollars.

They came to a government looking for $300,000 to be able to carry forward. That $300,000 has been added to the money given by the former government when they were in power. What we have done in the past year, it is in the budget here, and I have never gotten one question on those items in the Estimates so I will give it now. I am prepared to answer anything on that.

What we have done in this fiscal year, we have allowed for a delay of the repayment of the money plus interest for one year, and they will have to start paying that then, because they needed an opportunity to be able to carry on their business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: They needed to be able to carry on in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and be able to do business there. We have delayed it. We have not, in any way, written off or changed anything. I might add, it is very minuscule, $300,000, in comparison to millions that went through under a former government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone can see the irony in the Minister of Finance standing to defend something the Premier did when he, himself, refused to acknowledge the request from Griffiths Guitar as being one that, in fact, they should do as a government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can he confirm that Griffith's Guitars, which has on its Board of Directors such noted businessmen as John Risley, use the money they got from the government to set up production in China and to set up a distribution centre in the United States?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can quite honestly say, I have no idea who is on the Board of Directors of Griffith's Guitars. No idea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will have to recess the House if we do not get co-operation.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Just a few short years ago the minister was outraged in the House of Assembly because ambulance operators were operating with only four ambulances and paramedics in daytime and only two units on night duty. The only thing that has changed is the minister is no longer the Health critic but now the Minister of Finance boasting surplus budgets. So why the change of heart, minister? Why do you not honour your commitment to the paramedics in the St. John's region?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There are a couple of things that have changed, I say, Mr. Speaker. One of them is that in 2003 there was additional ambulatory services added. This year, outside of what was budgeted because there was no representation in the previous three years to any of the Health Ministers, we added an additional $400,000 to put a transfer service on and additional dispatch services. So, there is a great deal that has changed, Mr. Speaker. Since 2003, when the additional ambulatory services were put on, there has been no representation made to any of the Health Ministers between then and now to ask for more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: They are asking now, minister, in case you have not noticed. They have been trying to get a meeting.

I was appalled on April 12, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of Health say that his government has addressed breast cancer in the Province. His own words in Hansard. The Cancer Society feels that a tracking system needs to be put in place to ensure repeat contact with women of breast cancer so that we may meet the targeted rate of 80 per cent screening amongst all women in our society. Is this something that the government will commit to?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I work very closely with the Canadian Cancer Society, and Peter Dawe at the Canadian Cancer Society, who have told us that he has been very impressed with the funding that has been put forward in this year's Budget to address cancer issues.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society and myself, as Minister of Health, and the officials in my department are working on a cancer strategy, and that issue will be addressed as part of the cancer strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, breast screening in this Province starts for most women at age fifty. Yet, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that this cancer is becoming more prevalent amongst younger women. Is the government considering reducing the age recommended for women to have breast cancer screening in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, as part of the cancer strategy that is now being worked on - and, hopefully, we will have a draft copy of that strategy this year - we will look at all areas of cancer to see how we can better improve cancer services in the Province. As we did in this year's Budget, we have had tremendous improvements to cancer strategies in the Province and cancer services in this Province in this year's Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I was contacted by a thirty-eight-year-old woman who found a lump in her breast in January. She tried to have a mammogram done in this Province and was turned away because of her age. Now, four months later, she has another and is finally able to have the important medical testing done.

Will this government undertake a study of breast cancer in younger women in our Province to determine if there is a statistical trend developing and to see if they can be more proactive in improving this particular health issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are just as concerned about cancer and the prevention of cancer as anybody in this Province. Certainly, part of the cancer strategy, and even outside of the cancer strategy, we will look at ways of trying to reduce cancer. What the member has put forward, we will certainly look at that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, evidence exists from a professor at Trent University that there is a connection between those who live near transformers and those who develop cancer. Mr. Gerald Higgins of Norris Arm has brought forward much information on this issue, as the minister knows. I ask him whether he or his department have investigated a possible link and if he will make his findings available to the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware there has been no investigation into that particular issue. I can look into it to find out if there has been an investigation, and if there was I will certainly make those findings available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, an ad hoc survey that was conducted in the Province of 4,000 people indicated that only nine of those with cancer did not live near transformers. Furthermore, there were 150 municipalities that were contacted for the survey, and all of them indicated that the majority of those diagnosed with cancer in their communities did, indeed, live near a transformer.

I think this is evidence enough to suggest that your department launch an independent study into this to assess if there is a definite concern for those people who are living near transformers in our Province, and I ask the minister if he will have an investigation of this.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, as one example, it is very difficult to find any house in the City of St. John's that is not near a transformer. There have been studies done in other jurisdictions that I am aware of. Those studies have come back without conclusive evidence that transformers cause cancer. That is not to say that they don't, Mr. Speaker, and I am certainly not prepared to say that they don't. We will look at whatever evidence is available in determining whether or not cancer is indeed connected to transformers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

The new government in Ottawa has taken nearly $1 billion out of energy conservation programs for people such as EnerGuide for houses, and New Brunswick has shown an average of 37 per cent reduction in energy consumption for a home retrofit. Mr. Speaker, Quebec and New Brunswick are determined to carry on without the feds with New Brunswick offering a $10,000 interest free loan for consumers.

Will his government step up to the plate to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can have access to this kind of program that would save money on higher energy costs and create needed jobs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Officials from my department and from HLRE are in consultation right now with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and that is exactly what we are looking at, to see how we can supplement the program that was already in place and see if we can find ways to enhance the program provincially.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we understand that there are two kinds of programs, the low-income program and the regular program, and that NLHC are looking after one.

I do have a follow-up supplementary question on a different matter, regarding the protection of ponds in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen that Aur Resources is determined to do in two ponds out in Central Newfoundland as part of its Duck Pond development. Mr. Speaker, we now hear that Inco plans to use a pond -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - called Sandy Lake, the size of Quidi Vidi Lake, as a tailings pond in Long Harbour.

I just want to ask the minister to answer a simple question: Is his government prepared to let people like Inco or Aur Resources destroy ponds, are they going to let them do it or are they going to put a stop to it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to let anyone destroy any ponds or any type of environment. It goes through an entire process. The process is as wide as it can be so that people can have input and then decisions will be made on forthcoming information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, flood victims in Stephenville have experienced a great deal of turmoil and stress. Twenty-three families living outside the flood zone are experiencing high levels of anxiety. They are seeking copies of the petroleum technology report, which the town has in its possession. Government admits they have it also. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs stated he will get them a copy. The Member for Stephenville East told them to apply under the Freedom of Information Act.

I ask the Premier: After this runaround, would you order your ministers to show some compassion and give these families a copy of this report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the member for his question.

With respect to the environmental report that was done, I have already committed to my hon. critic a few days ago that we would have a look at that. My department is reviewing it at this point in time. There was some confusion out there of who should release and make the report public. The work was done for the Town of Stephenville, the government paid for it, Mr. Speaker, and we will be releasing that report to those individuals in the very near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just let the minister know that the town council is releasing bits and pieces to the residents. You can see their frustration, that here is a report, the council are releasing pages by pages, and here is the minister now saying that he is going - they need the report, Mr. Minister, they really need the report.

There is a second report, some call it the emergency report, some call it the flood zone report. The twenty-three families are once again getting the runaround, in addition to all the stress they are living with. The Town of Stephenville is saying that the report belongs to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the department is saying it belongs to the town as the government only paid for the report.

Will the Premier, again, show some compassion and order the release of this report to the affected families to know what they are dealing with and why they are outside the affected flood zone area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this question because I do want to clear up some confusion with respect to a report that the member is talking about.

First of all, I will say that this government showed more compassion for victims of floods in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador than that government ever showed when they were the government, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: By far, Mr. Speaker, with respect to their response and the amount of money that we are putting into it.

Now, with respect to the so-called report that the hon. member is talking about, there was an environmental report done for the Town of Stephenville. I said we would release that. The report that he is talking about, the flood control zone, the engineers were asked to determine where the flood control zone would be. Through normal engineering practices in the field, they made that determination. That boundary has been plotted on a map and it has been made public, at least a month ago, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

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

I want to table two documents today, or reports: The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Annual Report, and the Report on Mineral Licences, Mining Leases and Surface Leases issued for the period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table for the hon. members the Activities Report for the Real Estate Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board, as well as the annual report on operations carried out under the Automobile Insurance Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am standing on behalf of the people of the Buchans area and it is becoming abundantly clear, according to the debate that ensued last night, that this government has no intention of investing any money in the highway in Buchans.

I listened to the Minister of Natural Resources today, and I looked at the statement that he made. He talked about Messina Minerals making a significant investment in Tulks South Property in the Buchans, Millertown area and they are adding three new drill rigs this year. Now, Aur Resources are investing $90 million in the Duck Pond, Millertown area. The Barite plant is in operation.

When I look at the Tory Blue Book, the Premier is saying that investment infrastructure is one of the most effective ways government can stimulate job creation in the short and long-term. Do you know something? That is a statement that got this government elected, but it is only lip service because they have no commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not understand it. I have made the case day after day for upgrades to the Buchans Highway. I think anyone who is listening would say: Yes, she has made her case. There is a lot of logic in the evidence to support why infrastructure money should be spent.

We have a government here now that is crying out for new job creation and you have three companies that have invested millions of dollars in the Buchans area and they are going to be spending thousands, and hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars in service products all over Central Newfoundland and all over our Province. Yet, we have a government that will not invest $1 million to upgrade the Buchans Highway so people can get to their work, so jobs and services can be produced in that particular area.

The Minister of Finance will not need to have a heart attack when he stands up talking about the Budget. The money is coming easy, revenue from Central Newfoundland. Still, today, he stood up and talked about $300,000 invested in Griffiths Guitars was a minuscule amount of money for jobs that are outside our Province. Now, today, I am asking for $1 million to upgrade the Buchans Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I see the Minister of Transportation and Works has no compassion. Even though he is from rural Newfoundland, he has no compassion for people who are trying to live there and conduct their business and contribute to the provincial economy. There is no logic to confirm why the Minister of Finance is not seeing fit to invest in this highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: May I have five minutes?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Finance has denied my leave. Typical of an arrogant government three years on the job.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today to offer a petition concerning the Wild Cove dump site in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands is presenting a petition. We ask for everybody's attention so we can hear what the gentleman has to say.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I was denied leave by the Minister of Finance again, because he does not want to hear the stuff that should be done around the Province, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to offer a petition again on behalf of the residents, this time of the Town of Cox's Cove, concerning the dump site on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands. Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition because this may be the last petition.

There is a meeting with the two ministers on, I think it is, May 16, with the two ministers - the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Conservation - with the mayors on the North Shore and other interested councils involved with the Wild Cove dump site.

WHEREAS Council is opposing the continued use of the Wild Cove dump site; and

WHEREAS the site creates a mess of garbage along the roadway from Wild Cove to Ballam Bridge; and

WHEREAS the smell is particularly bad in summer; and

WHEREAS any tourists who visit our area do not have a good impression of the area right from the start, having to drive through the litter along the roadway and ditches;

WHEREUPON we the undersigned are opposed to the Wild Cove dump staying in operation for another twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, I just advise the two ministers that, in the meeting on May 16, those residents, and the councils representing those residents, will be asking to have the dump site removed, somehow; go on to the regional disposal site somewhere outside the area, somewhere outside the municipal boundary.

It became more evident again, and I always knew it, that I can walk up to the dump site with a bag of garbage out of my car and throw it in, no problem. Someone who is about twenty feet boundary just down has to pay $20 to have the garbage dropped off.

It is getting so strict now with the City of Corner Brook that if I walked in there, or any resident of the City of Corner Brook, they have to have an ID or they are not allowed to drop off their garbage, or they have to pay their funds. It is just unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

Then you talk about the road hazard coming up. Granted, the residents did put up with this hazard for the last number of years. Granted, there was always a problem there, but they always saw the light at the end of the tunnel because the commitment was made to have the dump site closed, not extended for another twenty or thirty years.

I just put the two ministers on notice that the councils they will be meeting will be asking to have the dump site shut down, a regional disposal site built somewhere, and follow the recommendations that were made in the report to the Great Humber Joint Council to have it outside a municipal boundary so that people who come in from outside will be able to use the site -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. JOYCE: I thank the hon. House Leader for leave to clue up.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. It deserves a great deal of consideration and thought, and I can assure the ministers that I know the City of Corner Brook is moving full steam ahead to try to close this, but the people on the North Shore do have legitimate concerns. They should be addressed; they should be adhered to.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs said what a regional dump site is going to look like, a disposal site, and I agree - I agree - but without the little information being shared with the mayors and the residents, it is going to cause confusion.

So, I thank the two ministers for coming out and meeting with the councils. I look forward to the meeting with the councils. If the two ministers want to visit the dump site beforehand, I will gladly bring them down to the dump site, to show them the dump site, and express the concerns so they have first-hand knowledge of the concerns facing the residents of the North Shore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition signed by the residents of Harbour Grace, and it simply states:

We, the undersigned, fully support the stand of the Town of Harbour Grace, to stop the closure of Harbour Grace Primary scheduled for 2010 by the Eastern School Board.

This decision for closure is unprofessional, inappropriate, and obviously personally mandated. Failure to reverse this decision will leave us no other choice but to call for the immediate resignation of our zone representative, Milton Peach, and the Director of Education for the Eastern School District, Darin King.

It says, "Speak up for your future, your children's future and your Town's future. Don't be part of the silence, let's be heard."

Mr. Speaker, Harbour Grace has been dealt a number of blows over the past number of years. One of the major ones has been the closure, of course, of their fish plant. You know, the education system and the infrastructure in the community is very important to the growth and lifespan of a community. Harbour Grace lost a school some time ago, and yet they are afraid that there is going to be another school lost. Mr. Speaker, the school slated for closure, Harbour Grace Primary, is one of the newest in the district. It was built in 1989.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago -

MR. JOYCE: Built when?

MR. SWEENEY: In 1989.

Some time ago, the council and the mayor wrote a letter to the Minister of Education asking for a meeting with her to discuss their concerns regarding this school closure. As of this morning, there has been no reply back. The mayor has asked me to see if the minister would consider meeting with him and some of his councillors in a friendly, cordial way to discuss this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the mayor says here that he cannot personally believe the theoretical differences between the previous and current education boards. He has spoken with members of the previous boards, and they find that the new recommendations are hard to believe considering all of the discussions and public input that was received.

The current board speaks of the value of the community schools; yet, they will not consult with the community. There was a short meeting. The town had ten minutes. It was almost like The Gong Show. After the alarm went off, they were shut down. There was no dialogue allowed afterwards. There was no input from the people. A ten-minute report, a ten-minute presentation by, I think it was, the deputy mayor of the town, and he gave some of the rationale why this school should not be closed.

The interesting part of it was that this presentation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Leave, Mr. Speaker, to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the interesting part of this was that there were only two of the fifteen trustees present. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How can this be a valid meeting and a valid decision, with such a small minority of the board?

Minister, I ask you again: Would you please entertain the notion of having a meeting with the mayor and some of his councillors?

Mr. Speaker, hopefully tomorrow I will get an opportunity to continue on, on another issue. I certainly hope not, because the mayor and council were good enough - he closes off by saying: In the meantime, please accept this T-shirt as a token of the pride of the people of Harbour Grace

MS FOOTE: For who?

MR. SWEENEY: For the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) laughing.

MR. SWEENEY: I hope she is not laughing and wearing the T-shirt that the Town of Harbour Grace sent in to her.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the constituents in the District of Grand Bank and, I guess, on behalf of a lot of people on the Burin Peninsula. Of course, I refer to the closure of the fish plant in Fortune.

The petitions that I have been presenting throughout the last couple of weeks have, in fact, been signed by people from Grand Bank and Fortune.

Today, I am presenting a petition - the same petition, actually - signed by people from Lord's Cove, Point May, Lamaline and Point au Gaul. These people, of course, are impacted as well.

I have said time and time again in this House of Assembly, the closure of the fish plant in Fortune does not only impact on the Town of Fortune and the people who live in Fortune, but on people from all of these communities because they all have worked at that plant and, of course, what happens in terms of a loss of employment for individuals from those communities, that impacts as well on local businesses in the communities that are impacted.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is, in fact, calling upon government to acknowledge that the fish that has been traditionally processed in Fortune, at the plant in Fortune, should continue to be processed there. People who have signed this petition are calling on the government to make sure that FPI is not allowed to walk away with a quota that has been traditionally processed in Fortune. They have been very callous. The company has been very callous in their actions. They have completely disregarded their responsibility as a corporate citizen in this Province. They certainly have not been a good corporate citizen in the last little while, given the impact that their decisions have had on the people who worked for them. It is not only the people who worked on the floor of the fish plant, but we have the management of the fish plant as well who have been hung out to dry.

I had a call the other day from one of the managers who said they have not been able to get any answers at all in terms of what the future holds for them. They have tried to get meetings and they have been brushed aside. So, we have the management of the FPI plant in Fortune, as well as all of the people who were employed at the fish plant in Fortune, as well as the fisherpeople who sold their product to FPI. All of these people are calling on the government now and saying, you must do whatever you can to ensure that a quota that was traditionally processed in Fortune continues to be processed in Fortune. Because that is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that they see any future for themselves in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, many are leaving today. They have left in weeks gone by, months gone by, ever since FPI decided to be as callous as it has been and move to other parts of this country.

There is a cost associated with that, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, these people who have been on EI now for a period of time, the EI is running out. They will have absolutely no income, so they have no choice but to leave our Province. In fact, come June, I expect we will see many more leaving and taking their families with them. The hardship that this is posing on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is unheard of. In fact, I would say it is probably -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: I appreciate the leave.

I think it is important to make the point that what we are seeing happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today as a result of the actions by FPI and the inaction of this government is that we are probably seeing a crisis that is having a severe impact, probably greater than the closure of the cod fishery when we saw the moratorium imposed.

Mr. Speaker, I again call on the government to acknowledge that it is a serious issue here. FPI should never, ever be allowed to sell off whatever they are going to sell off and leave with a quota.

Thank you.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents on the Great Northern Peninsula. I will read the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I will have a few words. If I do not finish it today, I will be presenting another petition tomorrow from the same residents of that general area.

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Great Northern Peninsula has suffered extreme amounts of high unemployment over the last five years; and

WHEREAS fish plant operations have been the primary employment generator along the Northern Peninsula; and

WHEREAS many fish plants have been closed as a direct consequence of government action, such as New Ferolle, Englee, Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point, as well as others; and

WHEREAS this has put fish plant workers out of work; and

WHEREAS the current operating fish plants are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, attributable to government action or inaction;

WHEREUPON the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to strike an all-party committee of the House of Assembly to come and meet with the Great Northern Peninsula Concerned Citizens Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the petition on behalf of all those who have signed it. From communities like: Shoal Cove west, Reefs Harbour, New Ferolle, and so on. What they are asking, simply, is that the government establish an all-party committee to go visit the residents of the affected region on the Northern Peninsula to try and determine what we can do, what government can do to help them out. Because as they said in their petition, Mr. Speaker, a lot of this can be attributed to the actions or the inactions on behalf of this current government. I will talk about Anchor Point and the plant in Black Duck Cove today, and if I get a chance I will also mention New Ferolle, as we talked about already in the House of Assembly today, and Englee.

The plants, I believe, in Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point are not open today and the residents of that area are not employed in those two plants simply because of government's inaction to enforce a policy that has been on the books in the Department of Fisheries for the Province for the past ten or twelve or fourteen years.

Mr. Speaker, when Vic Young and FPI built the plant in Port au Choix, they built it under one condition, that shrimp harvested in the Gulf had to remain on the Northern Peninsula for processing. Shortly after that, Daley Brothers went up and built a fish plant in Anchor Point, the one that is not open today, and they were included in that. Fish harvested in the Gulf - shrimp harvested in the Gulf had to be processed then in those two plants, Anchor Point and in Port au Choix. Later, in came Black Duck Cove, St. Anthony and later Charlottetown.

Mr. Speaker, the reason those plants are not open today is because the government won't enforce a policy that has been on the books down there. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I know enough about that fishery to know that if the minister said today that shrimp that is harvested in the Gulf had to be processed on the Gulf, then the fish wouldn't be trucked off the Peninsula and those people who are unemployed in that region of the Province, one of the most severely hit areas when it comes to out-migration, those people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. REID: Just a couple of seconds to clue up, Mr. Speaker, because I said I will be back again tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: To clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.

MR. REID: I am firmly convinced, all the Minister of Fisheries has to do today is make the proclamation, according to the policy in his own department, that shrimp harvested in the Gulf has to remain on the Northern Peninsula, and, Mr. Speaker, I bet you dollars to donuts the plant in Anchor Point and the plant in Black Duck Cove would be opened within a matter of days. The owners of those two plants will not open them if they are giving an opportunity to take that shrimp that came out of the Gulf and take it to other plants that are located on the Avalon Peninsula, while those on the Northern Peninsula are home and the plants are remaining idle.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to present a petition again on behalf of the citizens and the students of the Rose Blanche, Harbour Le Cou and Diamond Cove area in the Burgeo-LaPoile District.

This is, I believe, the ninth petition of its sort that I have been receiving, and have received, from that particular area. It concerns the intended meeting, I should say at this point, to take place on Thursday night in Rose Blanche in St. Michael's concerning the possible closure of St. Michael's School.

I have issued to the Minister of Education, who represents the district just next door to mine, a personal invitation to be in attendance at that meeting. I feel it would be very beneficial to her. Of course, I copied that to all the local media and the students and the teachers and the residents of Rose Blanche, Harbour Le Cou and Diamond Cove, to let them know that the Minister of Education has been invited. If you are going to make these decisions, and you are the minister ultimately responsible for the administration of education in this Province, you ought to actually see, firsthand, how these types of decisions are made, the deliberations that take place, and exactly what the impact of a decision of this nature will be; not only on the students in K-6 who will end up being put on a bus and bused up the road to another community, but also on the community itself.

There are all kinds of issues here. It is not just a case of a physical building that we, for whatever reason, might not want to keep going anymore. You have to consider the social fabric of the community. We haven't seen a lot, in this government in some cases, about the social fabric of some communities. Schools, I am a firm believer, the same as our churches, are one of the cornerstones of our communities. If we start removing schools from our small communities in rural Newfoundland, actually that is not a bleeding, that begins the hemorrhaging from these communities. You cannot expect people to stay there if their kids cannot get educated.

For the cost that is involved, there is very limited cost, particularly in this case, because St. Michael's is in great physical condition. The teachers are all from that area and want to live there, and the students certainly want to stay there. They have some particular programming, in fact, in place in that school that they are not going to get up the road even though they are going to a bigger school.

The board is going to be in Rose Blanche on Thursday evening to discuss all of these considerations. The parents will be well prepared. They will be very orderly and logical. Again, I sincerely invite the Minister of Education to educate herself as to what happens in these types of motions, how boards deal with them and how the parents deal with them, because you have a very rational, logical group of parents in Rose Blanche who, no doubt, when the chips are down and the meeting is over on Thursday night, will have made their case why St. Michael's should not be slated for closure.

Again, we invite everybody in that particular area to come out and support the people in that area, and the students in that area, who desperately want their school to stay open.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou and Diamond Cove.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition on behalf of residents from Victoria to Bay de Verde, Red Head Cove, on the North Shore.

The petition states, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS conditions on Route 70 passing through Victoria and Salmon Cove is in bad need of repair; and

WHEREAS the traffic travelling over this road includes school buses, commercial trucks and patients going to hospitals by private vehicle or by ambulance; and

WHEREAS this route is part of the Conception Bay North Highway and it has deteriorated over the past number of years;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to see that this section of road is brought up to proper standards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to speak over the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde over there. She is making a few comments. She is talking about her mechanic again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

The other night, going home, I received the greatest body blow - voting against the Budget. This is one of the reasons why I voted against the Budget, Mr. Speaker. There were a number of very inadequate things there. I would also like to add the fact that when the vote was taken, Mr. Speaker, I was attending a function in my district. I wish the hon. member would get her facts straight.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that this particular stretch of highway serves a large number of people. The particular highway itself serves a number of senior homes. It serves a couple of fish plants in that area. It also serves a couple of parks: Northern Bay Sands and Salmon Cove Sands, two very busy spots during the summer months. A high number of tourists travel the area. The area is called, ‘Going around the Loop', where they leave, go down through Victoria, down around the shore, and come back again over Heart's Content and Heart's Content Barrens, back to Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting to note is that, since these petitions have started, there are notes being added to the petition, such as: In desperate need. Another one here: Please help my sick mom. Give her a decent road to drive to the hospital on. Fix the road. There are all sorts of footnotes added to a petition, which I have not seen very often.

Mr. Speaker, this particular road also brings people from that area, from the North Shore area, to the Carbonear General Hospital. There are also people who are visiting family and friends at the Harbour Lodge and the Interfaith nursing home. Carbonear is also a shopping area, a service center, where many people from that particular area go to obtain various goods and services.

Mr. Speaker, all these people are asking for is some repairs to the road. If it cannot be resurfaced - and, judging from what I received last week in the press release from the Minister of Transportation, it does not look like it is going to be resurfaced this year - I certainly wish -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, all they are asking for is, if the road cannot be resurfaced, at least for it to be repaired in a timely manner before the tourism season ends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Orders of the Day, I believe, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

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

I want to move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 16.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House, under Standing Order 11, not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. of the clock today, Tuesday, May 16.

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.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) your mouth so (inaudible). You speak volumes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is interesting; the Leader of the Opposition just sang out to my colleague, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, to ask if she has ever heard the saying: Open thy mouth so we may know thee.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you have done a great example of us coming to know you, and so have the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 3, to move, pursuant Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that, pursuant to Standing Order 11, this House not adjourn today, May 16, 2006, at 10:00 o'clock p.m.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 6, I move second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 29)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Province continues to move forward with the one student-one loan concept introduced under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Integrated Loan Agreement signed in March, 2004. To this end, the Department of Education is introducing legislation to adjust the Student Financial Assistance Act to permit integrated collections with the federal government. These legislative changes or amendments are necessary in order to further this agreement.

Integrated collections being set, the federal and provincial governments will combine collection efforts on the defaulted student loans. This will result in one collector contacting borrowers, and one repayment which will be applied to both the federal and provincial defaults of the student loan. This will certainly introduce a more streamlined process for the students who are in default - I guess they are not students at the time - the people who are in default of their student loans, because at this time there would be two collections of these defaulted loans: one for the provincial and one for the federal system.

Government is concerned about the rate of recovery on defaulted student loans. There are approximately 9,700 provincial defaulted loan accounts nearing $69 million, and increasing at a rate of approximately $1 million a month. These loans must be collected to ensure students with defaulted student loans are treated the same as students in good standing who are repaying their student loans.

Upon implementation, once a student has defaulted for more than nine months, the collection process will be handled solely by the federal government. Rather than being contacted by two agencies, the process will be streamlined and the borrower will only have to deal with one collector.

Through these integrated collections with the federal government, the Province hopes to develop a process to collect defaults of loans in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand to respond to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

Now, this is one bill that I can remember very well. What we are finding out today, this is a continuation of a bill that this government brought to the House of Assembly in a panic mode April of 2004 - actually, it was March 30. There was a real panic by the new government when they brought down their first Budget.

One of the bills that was brought to the House of Assembly was an act to allow the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the financial institution for those wanting a student loan in our Province. For months prior to that, the Province had been contacted by the financial institution, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and the Province had been notified that they were going to get out of the business of providing student loans to the students in our Province, as well as all the other provinces in Canada. Our government, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, were set to frighten the whole population at that time. They wanted to grab onto any amount of money that would look like the former Administration - which I was a part of - had left this government in financial straits. So, they used the taking over of the student loan portfolio, which was in excess of $250 million, to add to the so-called one billion deficit that was in our Province in 2003.

Now there was a real panic mode in this House of Assembly at that time. The first piece of business that was conducted - I think it was March 30. It had to be done for March 31, and I remember it well, standing in this House of Assembly and saying: Well, you know, there is no need to panic. The Bank of Commerce are not going to cut off all the students in this Province who have loans on their books, because everyday the Bank of Commerce does not get paid, students are paying more interest. They are going to pay interest, whether they pay it to the Bank of Commerce or the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There was almost euphoria in this House of Assembly with that first piece of legislation. The government were hell-bent on getting it through by March 31 so they could say that they inherited a debt of almost $1 billion. They rushed around like crazy, and everyone who sat in the new government caucus on that side of the House were told that they had to vote for this bill - because they were in panic mode - because it had to match the amount of debt that was supposedly owed by the Province. For that reason, that was the first piece of legislation ever brought to this House of Assembly by the new government. They could take over the student loans of the students who had attended university in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and those outside who had gotten loans. They wanted to do this all before March 31, 2004, and it was done.

I remember the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the Government House Leader - I know there were a few little glitches in the process of who was going to do what and what the Speaker was going to do. It took them a while before they got their sea legs here in the House of Assembly, but they had a bit of -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am not providing you with advice. I am recounting the history of this piece of legislation. This is only added to what was already done on March 31, 2004.

At that particular time it was so important to add to the Province's debt load so they could say that the former Administration had left them a debt of almost $1 billion. This piece of legislation, the student loan portfolio, was the jewel in the crown because that really helped to ramp it up. That really helped to ramp it up and add to the total debt so they could match up the figures by saying that all the communications were out saying that they had inherited a debt of $1 billion.

That was not the only piece of legislation that came in towards education. The next piece of legislation was to cancel, immediately, an opportunity that the former Administration had provided to students who chose to live and work in our Province. As a government investing in youth, we saw fit to provide an opportunity for those young people who wanted to stay and live and work in our Province, that they would get a tax credit for every dollar they paid on their student loan if they had a job in Newfoundland and Labrador; an incentive to keep them here. That was the first piece of legislation. After the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador put the student loan portfolio on their books, then they proceeded to cancel the opportunity for those young people in our Province to get a tax credit. So that was the unfortunate part about it.

There was a lot of interesting debate last night that took place in our House of Assembly, and particularly, when I heard the Member for Mount Pearl talking about the injection of money into education in our Province this year. He thought it was probably the largest in the history of the Province. I had a look at the graphs that are attached to our Budget Book every year. It was interesting to note that the first time Roger Grimes, who was the Premier of our Province from 2001 to 2003, the first Budget that he brought down was in 2001. That was labelled an education Budget. It was interesting when I looked at the graph from 2001 and 2006 today. At that particular time, 19.2 per cent of the Province's entire Budget was spent on education in our Province in 2001. This year, 2006, it is 18.7 per cent. So, that is an interesting statistic.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It makes no difference. We are looking at the overall Budget and -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, I heard you today say it was a minuscule $300,000, a loan to Griffiths Guitars. The other day when the paramedics were looking for $200,000 that was insurmountable, but today $300,000 is minuscule. So, we have to tell it like it is.

I look at the fact that in 2001 there was a lot of money spent on education because that was an education budget. It is interesting, the total amount spent in school buildings, just school buildings alone, since educational reorganization. That was when all denominational schools went public in our Province. Up to 2001, there was $160 million spent just in buildings alone. One hundred and sixty million dollars, now, that is a lot of money. For instance, at that particular time, in 2001, there was a huge increase in hydro rates in schools, and a lot of the school boards were finding it very difficult to pay their energy bills. Because of that, the government of the day, at that time, injected almost $4 million to school boards to look after the cost of paying the extra costs for utilities for electricity.

It was actually at the same time that I heard the Minister of Finance say that, if he ever became the government, the first thing he would do was make sure that those who burned electricity would get a subsidy. That was the very first time, I think, I heard him say it in Hansard, and I have the record.

That has all changed since then. I think it was the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs now who said that those who burn electricity should never have to pay tax on their light bills.

These were the kinds of things the present government said while they were in Opposition. Of course, then again, the present government also said that there were not enough paramedics, and now today there are plenty of them, and $200,000 is insurmountable. They cannot find $200,000 to pay the paramedics.

When you look at the changes that were made in the education system under the former Administration, it is absolutely amazing. There was a total revamp of student loans in our Province. We listened to young people right throughout our Province, and we met with them. There was a group, just an advisory committee on education for our young people. It was interesting, the changes that came out of that advisory. It led to a total revamping of our student loans in this Province, and there has been absolutely nothing done since we were the government, which is almost three years ago. There have been no new changes to students, and the debt that they have to pay in this Province by this new Administration. That is three years, almost. Well, it will be three years in October since the new government took over.

In 2002, young people going to college and university in this Province were able to take advantage of the debt reduction grants. For the first time in our history, young people going to college or university had an opportunity to have the full entire amount of their student loan paid off. The full amount of their student loan paid off. Debt reduction grants were earned on a semester, and students did not even have to apply; they were notified annually.

They had enhanced interest relief up to a maximum of thirty months, and that was available any time during the repayment of the loan. They were able to keep more of their money that they earned while they were doing their summer employment. That is another issue that comes to mind. There was always a $9 million program for student employment in our Province, and when the new government came into power they reduced that to $6 million. That had a huge effect on employment, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There is not the same opportunity to get a job when you are living in rural Newfoundland or Labrador. You do not see too many McDonald's or Tim Hortons in Nain or Makkovik, and you sure don't see them in Buchans Junction. Those areas certainly depend on government grants for jobs for the summer for their students. Government has an obligation to provide rural students with the same employment experience as those in urban centres.

That was a big blow when this government came to power and I do not know why that has not been ramped up to $9 million again, because government are certainly in a financial position right now to be able to offer even beyond the $9 million, but they have kept it back at $6 million.

The former Administration even increased loans for MUN medical students. Those group of students were increased from $200 a week up to $365. So, these are the kinds of enticements to keep students in our Province and once they graduate to keep them back here.

I must say, in the Central West Health Care Board we have had great success in attracting our med students back to Grand Falls-Windsor. I think there might be probably at least six couples right now who are doctors in Grand Falls-Windsor, husband and wife teams, who have come through the MUN medical school, have been contacted and recruited by the Central West Health Care Board and have taken up residence in our community, which is adding so much to the specialties that we need in our hospital and also to stability. We all know, of course, that once a doctor and their family take up residence in a community they get involved. There is a valuable asset by that alone, besides the fact that once they set up roots they are more inclined to stay there, which is a good thing.

In fact, it was our government that provided grants for early childhood education students, non-repayable grants, because we all realize that students who graduate and get into early childhood development careers are not always paid large dollars starting out. As a result of that, the former administration provided grants for early childhood education students that were actually non-repayable grants. That is what we have heard mostly from students around the Province as of late, that they are not interesting in being able to borrow more money. That is not the answer. Students are not interested in being able to borrow more money.

I think that was the only offer that the federal government made recently as well, being able to extend the federal student loan program for those requiring more money to complete their education and so on. That is not the answer, providing students with more of an opportunity to borrow more money. Naturally, if a student borrow more money they are going to have great difficulty repaying that money. To take on a debt of $50,000 or $60,000 and try to live, work and establish yourself, you are handcuffed. You are basically handcuffed for years to do that. What students all over this country are asking for is the fact of being able to get more of those non-repayable grants.

I remember Premier Williams early on, when taking over this government, was impressed with the Irish model of free education. He often said, that type of education system works, and he would be looking at the potential of that. I would say to this government that they are now in a position to give that serious consideration. When you look at the fact that we are not on equal footing, if you look at students who are coming in from rural communities around our Province, and Labrador too, having to travel and look for accommodations, you know they are already at a disadvantage before they even step into class at Memorial University or the College of the North Atlantic or even a private college, just because of the fact of having to pay for all these extra costs that someone living in the St. John's area would not have to do. These are the kinds of financial disadvantages if you are from rural communities.

So, it is time for the government to recognize these inadequacies that exist between urban and rural Newfoundland communities. They have lots of opportunity now. For a government that proposed or said they had taken over a $1 billion debt, and in the matter of three Budgets they are debt free, even though they tried hard at the end of March to spend whatever money that was around so they would not have to declare a surplus. After the end of all that process, they still had $76 million that they could not spend by the end of March. Now, that says a lot.

We have turned an important corner in our history in this Province. A lot of it, of course, is because of federal money that we are going to get because of the Atlantic Accord and also the high price of oil. Our oil industry has certainly taken front and center, but in recent days I almost think that it is taking too much of the limelight and our fishery is put on the back burner. That is worrisome, because even when you look at the fact that today, as well as other days in this House of Assembly, colleagues of mine, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for Bellevue, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, all of these members have stood in their places and asked government to review the idea of school closures in their districts. It is getting to the point now that - I do hope the issue is settled for the Member for Bellevue because I was shocked when that group came here to the House of Assembly and we learned that those school children would have to be on the bus for an hour-and-a-half everyday in order to attend high school.

These are not the kinds of things that this government should be doing, insisting that school children travel over sometimes not-too-good roads either, go off from their families, probably start out at 7:00 in the morning and come back at 6:00 in the night. These are the kinds of petitions that have come to this House in the past couple of weeks. Many of those issues will probably be met head on by school boards around our Province during the summer and early fall. It is alarming when you consider that you are losing the main focus of your community, which is always the school. All activities generally take place in the schools in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When you lose your school it brings into question: How can we stay here as a family if our children are having to commute to school? Then people start to think: Well, maybe we should all move as a family if that is what is going to happen. Then you look at the fact, by the time that child starts university then there is more expense. Lots of times decisions are made by people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to accompany children. For one reason, their main school is closing in their community and, as a result, children are having to travel further.

Not even that was a consideration day after day when I gave my petition regarding the Buchans Highway. There was no consideration given to children who are travelling from Millertown or Buchans Junction, riding in a school bus everyday over the Buchans Highway. That consideration was not taken into account either when I petitioned everyday in this House looking for improvements - when you look at the fact that the former Administration made all of the changes to education in this Province, brought in an education Budget, lived up to their word. In fact, when you look at tuition across Canada, we, in this Province, through the help of the former Administration, brought about the lowest tuition in the country.

I used to marvel at how the current Minister of Finance used to stand in his place until he was red in the face - I thought he was going to have a heart attack many times. He used to try to argue with me, when I was the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, that we did not have the lowest tuition in the country. Now he stands up in his place and says he is proud to announce that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest tuition in the country. Isn't that something? Twenty feet makes all the difference in how a person in this House of Assembly reacts.

The only Province in the country that had a tuition lower than ours was the Province of Quebec. The only way you got that lower tuition was the fact that you must be residing in Quebec. That must be the place where you are living and you are from Quebec. Now, that was the only Province. If you were a student from Newfoundland and Labrador and you were attending university in Quebec, you would not get that low tuition. You would have to pay the going rate as for every other student.

It is interesting, we made three different changes to tuition at Memorial University. We started out with a 10 per cent reduction one year, it was followed by another 10 per cent and a 5 per cent, for a total of 25 per cent reduction in tuition fees for our students. We made a conscious decision to freeze tuition at the College of the North Atlantic. Now, this current government has not done anything in the past three years. They have continued to freeze tuition but they have not lowered tuition, status quo. They have not done anything to enhance student loans in this Province. All the overhaul was done in 2002 under the former Administration.

It is interesting when we talk about schools in this Province that were built in the past few years. One thing that the former Administration agreed to and did was that any money which was derived from denominational education was put back into public schools - every cent would be put back into public schools. That was done. In fact, a new department was established just for post-secondary education and youth services.

At that particular time, in 2001, education spending was $6,434 per student. Even though the population was declining in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the amount of money that was spent in the education of our children was not. In fact, it was increased. School board grants were increased. All school boards that had a large population of students in the past attending their schools, their grants were kept intact. There were no teacher layoffs; absolutely no teacher layoffs, despite the declining enrollment. Even though the enrollment declined by 3,500 students, there were no teacher layoffs.

All this was done because there was a ministerial panel report on education reform, and if the government at that time had listened, they would have lost 218 teaching units, but they decided to reinvest $11 million. The student-teacher ratio was 13.3 students. When you look at school busing in the Province, there was a guideline adopted that students who live more than one point six kilometres from their school would be able to take advantage of school busing.

When you look at the fact that schools were built all over the Province, $160 million in school buildings when our school population was declining, and you look at the fact - it was only a few weeks ago I stood in this House and I talked about how Lakeside Academy in Buchans had been chosen again as one of the best schools in the Atlantic Provinces for different criteria from the AIMS group. That is a school that is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a school that makes the most of every dollar placed into education. It is a school that has a lot of energy and a lot of school spirit. If you talk to the teachers or the students in Buchans - and I am sure it is the same throughout all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - they will tell you that they have the best school anywhere. When students stay that, you know, that says a lot about their commitment to the school and to the community.

When you look at what has been invested into MUN over the years, the MUN Opportunity Fund, year after year the grant has been increased so Memorial University can attract new research dollars. Of course, new research dollars bring new activity into our Province. It brings new jobs, it brings new expertise, it brings new services, and a whole generation of new individuals wanting to come to our Province.

Just recently, the federal government passed a new law that says international students can now work in our country via student employment. That is a good thing, because up until now, of course, we know that we are one of the universities, here in this Province, where we have been trying to attract international students. We all know that international students have to pay more when they come into our Province. We have been able to maintain a good student population at Memorial University, in excess of 17,000 students a year. Now that these students are permitted to work in the summertime or whenever, between semesters and so on, they will now be able to live and work in our communities. As a result, you might find that a lot of these students will probably want to stay here.

This harmonization of the federal and provincial arrangement for the student loans will ensure that students are dealing with - I think the bad news that the Minister of Natural Resources just found out is that I am going to be able to speak for an hour. I would say to the Minister of Natural Resources, this should be a very enlightening hour that you would spend here in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the thought that this student loan will now be able to be administered by one agency, that means if you have a student loan that you are unable to pay on and you are running into difficulty, you will not be hounded from the provincial government and the federal government. There will only be one agency that is going to hound you now. You will have a chance of probably losing your Income Tax return. You will probably have a chance of losing your Income Tax refund. These are the kinds of things. As a result of that, you will only be dealing with one agency.

A lot of governments pay lip service to the importance of education in our system, but a lot of governments do not live up to that commitment. I remember, for instance, when schools were being built in communities that, from an economic point of view, people would say, well, there is no industry in a particular community. Still, for all that, we, as a former government, had decided to put schools in a lot of places. Just because there wasn't an industry there we felt we had an obligation, on the government's part, to make sure that those students had a proper education. I think back now to schools - my colleague, the member next to me here - there were three schools, I remember one year, built in Labrador. The Member for Torngat Mountains was so proud to stand in this House, and my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, today acknowledged his wonderful contribution to the children of Labrador, that he is very unselfish in his commitment to doing his best for the children of Labrador. I remember how proud he was when he was able to take part in the opening of a particular school in Labrador. I remember there were three one year that opened in his district and how proud he was. These were schools that were built in areas where there was absolutely no industry and no way to get into the next community.

I remember, too, when there was an issue in my district, and it was in Buchans. The issue then was air control. We had problems with our school. There had been pieces built on, there was mold, and it was not a healthy environment for the children in that area. Of course we could not bus them to Badger, that was 100 kilometres. It was unheard of at that particular time to bus students that distance, so as a result a decision was made to build a new school in Buchans. I remember at that time there were 189 students in the school and we decided, as a government, at that particular time, to build a $3 million school in Buchans. That is the same school that I talked about a few weeks ago that won the awards from AIMS about their high calibre of education at Lakeside Academy in Buchans.

This is the kind of commitment that you need to give to children. Every child has the right of a good education. You cannot expect children to sit in front of a computer and get their education by way of long distance learning. That is not the ideal situation. Every child has a right to a proper education, and you try to discourage long distance education whenever you can. I notice that in recent years the biggest fear of all is having to get on a school bus and drive for an hour or an hour and a half. I think now about the children in Salvage. It is a pretty treacherous road going to Salvage in the winter time. They are going to have to get on a bus in Salvage right now and travel to Glovertown. Is that on the rails now or is that off the rails? That is what I would like to know. There was a new school constructed in Eastport and I thought everybody had the idea at that time that they would all go to Eastport school. I hope the government has reconsidered that plan, because that would have been a bad move.

Children all over our Province are faced with the dilemma, and some of these schools are brand new schools, like the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace just said today. There is a school there in Harbour Grace that was built in 1989, and that is going to be closed up.

I was looking at a school when I was over in Corner Brook on the weekend and I noticed that one in Deer Lake is boarded up, which is a new school. I know our population is shifting. In fact, in the government's own material this year they were talking about an exodus from our Province in excess of 2,000 people. Now, the 2,000 people who are going to leave, more than likely they are the ones who will be seeking work, not retirement. If you are seeking work, more than likely you will have school children with you. That would be a blow to any of the schools in this Province, to lose children.

Of course, what we are seeing now in the larger centres, we are seeing an exodus of people from rural communities going to the larger centres. We have noticed that ourselves in Grand Falls-Windsor, but mostly on the retirement scale. We see a lot of people coming to Grand Falls-Windsor, interested in retiring in Grand Falls-Windsor, because we have the services there. Of course, we are glad to expand our community, but we are also seeing the people who will be working at the mine in Duck Pond next to Millertown. Some of those have moved to Grand Falls-Windsor and the hope is that a lot of them will move to other parts of the district like Badger, like Buchans, and like Buchans Junction. Millertown is the exception, because in Millertown you cannot find a place to rent or buy right now, and that is a wonderful feeling.

I remember when I was first elected, in 1996, there were less than 100 people living in the community of Millertown and now every house that is there is occupied and there have even been rental units brought in. That is what can happen when an industry comes to town. That is what can happen when a new life is injected by way of a new industry. Even the barite plant in Buchans that started off had some real glitches. The material that they were providing to offshore drilling -

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if she would contain her remarks to the relevance of the bill that is now being debated, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am talking about education in rural Newfoundland. I am talking about education in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and what a difference an industry makes into bringing new children into the community. That is what I am talking about, how a new industry coming into Buchans brings in new people. A new industry coming into Millertown, I said before how every house is now occupied. A new industry coming anywhere in that central region - what it means to the community. With new jobs come young people who will want to attend our schools and universities, and they will want to purchase our services.

Now, I would think that would be pretty relevant to the education system in our Province, but I will leave it at the discretion of the Chair on relevance. I would think that a vibrant economy produces young children to go to our schools. When the economy is gone, like we heard from the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the children go with it. Burgeo is not the Burgeo of fifteen years ago. As a result, there are not so many school children attending our schools in Burgeo. So, economy is all relevant to the number of school children, and all of these school children will grow up and they will be interested in the Student Financial Assistance Act that we are discussing here today.

The student ratio has been good in recent years for those attending and finishing high school and post-secondary education, but what we have to do as a Province now is encourage them to stay and work in our Province and contribute to the overall growth of our economy in our Province. That is the part that is troubling. That is the part that is troubling.

When you look at the spending on education in our Province, you have to look at every aspect of spending. It is not only the school books that are in the school. It is the atmosphere. The children have to be in a safe and secure atmosphere. If they are using buses, they have to be in good repair if they are driving over rural roads. Those roads should be in good repair as well. So, all of these factors play into the good of a child's education in our Province.

Now, when I look at this bill regarding the Student Financial Assistance Act, there are several questions I would like to ask the minister on that. I notice that this bill will give the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that is the Cabinet, the authority to negotiate and accept a settlement of a debt or claim due or made by or on behalf of the corporation in full settlement of that debt or claim.

I guess I would like to ask the minister, if we have a student who is into a situation where they have nowhere to turn - and, as we know, you cannot apply for bankruptcy protection. You cannot apply for bankruptcy at all if you are a student and you are paying off a student loan. I wonder, that particular clause in the bill, will that now give the minister, herself, the authority to examine the financial situation of a particular student and decide, in her wisdom, whether or not that particular loan will be paid off and written off by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? I would really like to ask the minister that.

It also says that the corporation may, upon the recommendation of the Treasury Board.... Now, I do not know about that because the Premier, two years ago, did away with Treasury Board, so I do not know if that is the Treasury Board in name or whether it is the real Treasury Board. It says the corporation may, upon the recommendation of the Treasury Board, negotiate and accept the settlement of a debt or claim due or made on behalf of the corporation in full settlement when that settlement results in a deficit of $5,000 or less.

What that clause does is give the Treasury Board the authority to write off a debt of a student if it is less that $5,000. The minister has the supreme authority that any debts to be written off on behalf of students in this Province, he or she, whoever may be the Minister of Education, this bill will give that person complete authority to write off any student loan in our Province.

They are also going to set the rules, saying that the Treasury Board may authorize the corporation - that is the Student Loan Corporation - in accordance with rules that the Treasury Board may establish - they are going to set up their own rules - and accept a settlement of a debt or a claim due or made on behalf of the corporation in full settlement of that debt or claim where each settlement results in a deficit of $1,000 or less.

What this bill sets out to do is give different levels of authority for writing off student debt in this Province. I guess if the student presents a strong case to the corporation, depending on the amount that is owing, the corporation has some powers and then the Treasury Board has another set of powers and the minister has the supreme authorization to write off the entire debt of a student. I do not know what the makeup of this student body will be. I know that we talked about it earlier last year. I guess it is important that there would be an unbiased decision in the making of this decision by the minister. The important thing is that the student would be given an opportunity to state his or her reasons why, in fact, they were not able to pay off their student loan. It should not be an easy process and it should not be one that is entered into carelessly, but you now have an opportunity, the students of this Province, to have their student debt examined and they can go before a board. It depends on the amount of their student loan, whether it be under $1,000, under $5,000 or beyond. There are three different levels of authorization that can write off a student debt for students in our Province.

I think the greatest thing this government could do - particularly a government that will have a surplus again next year, by all accounts. I think the greatest thing that this government can do, so students will not be in the position of having to submit a proposal to government to write off student debt, would be for the government of the day to look at providing grants in lieu of loans. You can talk to any student out there today and they will tell you that if they had a choice, they would have grants in lieu of loans. That puts rural students on an even footing with those in urban parts of our Province. If this government is serious in its commitment to education in our Province, they can certainly look at that long and hard between now and next Budget because I think that would be one of the greatest things. The framework is already there. There has been a complete overhaul of the student loan system by our government. The tuition is decreased and frozen at the College of the North Atlantic. I think the biggest, single investment that this government can make, rather than finding a way out to pay off student debt, would be to provide a grant in lieu of a student loan. So that is some of the things.

When you look at the act itself, one of the reasons this particular bill is coming to the House today is to allow the minister authority to enter into agreements with the federal government and have a seamless operation in the way students would now be able to apply for money, pay on their debt and request a write-off if they cannot pay for their debt. All bases have been covered, but I guess the main thing is providing a climate where students can work and find a job, number one, and a job that pays good money and a job that will keep them here in this Province so that they will not be forced to leave our Province. Lots of times students leave for the reason that they have a high student loan. As a result, if they feel they are here in this Province and having to pay off their student loan, probably at a lower wage, there is no incentive here now that they have lost their tax credit. This government has cancelled that possibility for them. When you stack up the reasons why a student would stay in this Province and pay off their student loan, live and work here, you have to make it interesting. You have to be able to encourage them to do that.

These are the kinds of things that government can do to make sure that students stay here. Number one, provide a grant instead of a loan; look at tuition again, if that can be reduced further do that; provide incentives for students who want to try to pay off their loan here and live in our Province; provide an incentive to keep them here in this Province. That can be done very simply, by making sure that we have the economic climate that attracts students to work in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I heard the minister say that right now there are 9,700 student loans that are currently in default; 9,700 loans currently in default. Now, that is a lot of loans to have on the books. She did not give the amount of default, what that came to in real dollars, but if I can recall from when that was brought to the House of Assembly in 2004, it would be in the area of $40 million, somewhere around that amount.

Why are 9,700 students defaulting on their loans? Was the proper interview done in the beginning? Are students focused on what they really want to study and are they intent on achieving that in the quickest time possible? That was why we, as a former government, brought in those incentive grants, for students to finish up early and they had an opportunity to pay off their student loans. But 9,700 students, almost 10,000 students, are defaulting on their student loans, and that creates a lot of bookkeeping.

The minister never said where that collection activity was going to take place. I know it is going to be handled by the federal government. Was the minister insistent on making sure that we had an office here in our Province, so a student would be able to go in and sit down in front of a real person and actually talk to a person, or is this a 1-800 number for collection accounts that students will have to deal with, or is it an online collection agency? If we are taking over a loan from the CIBC, as other provinces in Canada, and there is an arrangement between the federal government and all provinces - you know, some of these collection agencies can be like loan sharks. They can be like loan sharks, and I have often had to intervene myself, as the MHA. A lot of students have been hassled, through no fault of their own. Sometimes students have legitimate reasons why they can't pay on their student loans - lots of times it could be sickness - and they are not sure of the route to go.

I remember one student who came to me a couple of years ago. One of her parents had died and that caused a major impact on her and her ability to study at university. She had a student loan to pay for, and I guess at a time like that you are not completely focused in on being able to handle these problems. She started getting the calls from the collection agency and she was threatened quite a bit. When you are not feeling 100 per cent well and you are getting calls from collection agencies, that can be a form of harassment that you are not able to deal with if you are sick.

There are lots of reasons why students cannot pay for their loans. One might be that they haven't been successful in finding a job. Maybe that is the reason why they are not paying on their student loans, they haven't found a job, or maybe they are into a low paying job. Maybe they are working at the minimum wage, and what will that give you when you have to pay for living expenses and the day-to-day operation of a household, and then trying to pay on a student loan? That is one of the reasons why I think this government should have kept our legislation in place that gave students an opportunity to get a tax credit, for those who were making low wages in our Province and wanted to continue to work in our Province with the idea that they would better themselves in the end and be able to be part of our society that would contribute to the well-being of our economy.

The idea of having one student, one loan, I do not see anything wrong with that. There is nothing to quibble about there, one student, one loan. Anything that would make it more convenient for students and less hassle, there is nothing wrong with that.

With regard to the authority of the government to write off student loans for different amounts, I think we need more information on that one and what the regulations will be. I notice that the regulations can be made up by the board itself. These are the kinds of things that are not stated in this particular student loan. These are the kinds of the things we want to know about.

It is interesting too, as I said when I first got on my feet to talk about this, that in 2001 the percentage of funding that was actually in the Education budget was almost 1 per cent higher than it is today even though the dollar amount changed. Naturally, people who are in the education field, all of them have gotten raises since and so on, but the actual commitment of dollars to the budget in 2001 was 19 per cent and today it is 18.7 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot that can be done to enhance the education system in our Province. No matter who writes a budget or who stands on their feet and gives a budget on behalf of the Department of Finance, everyone says how important the education system is to our Province and I would be the first to agree to that. We should not have to get up day after day and petition government to reconsider closing schools. You have to be reasonable in that approach. You cannot expect children to get on a bus for an hour at a time and travel to schools. If you are trying to provide the best education possible for our young people you can do all the right things. All it takes is making sure that everybody has the same opportunity so that the person in Makkovik has the same opportunity as the person in St. John's. If you look down the road to when children from Labrador want to attend University, you have to give these young people a chance and you have to offer them an incentive by way of a grant to look after their living expenses.

We have Pages in our House of Assembly here today who are attending University, and part of their experience they are going to gather from doing work for the Members of the House of Assembly. I am sure when they leave this place they will have a different perception of how government operates. This is the real world of what happens. They will tell you themselves, you know, that they appreciate the experience and they appreciate the remuneration that is being paid to them. It is all a help to furthering their education and cutting back on their student loan. I am proud to say that I know that they are not all from urban Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I see one young lady there shaking her head who is from the rural part of our Province. That is good, because when Pages are chosen to work in our House of Assembly it is great to see that all our Province is represented. All of them will have an opportunity to view their members firsthand and derive what they will from that experience. I am sure it will be something they will take with them the rest of their days.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a very important subject this day in this House of Assembly, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, because the greatest thing of all would be that there would be no act. The greatest thing of all would be that there would be no act to amend the Student Financial Assistance Act. I believe that our Minister of Finance has an opportunity next year to change that. The Minister of Finance has an opportunity to go to the Premier and his Cabinet next year, along with the Minister of Education, and put in a plea to help students in this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: What did you do when you were here?

MS THISTLE: I did a lot when I was there. We did the most ever for students in this Province. We did the most ever, and you have not done anything in the past three years, Mr. Finance Minister, not a thing. It is just status quo.

The only problem with the Minister of Finance is he always seems to get hot and bothered when I challenge him from one item to another. In fact, we feared for his safety last night because his face turned so red. We were going to call in the paramedics but we knew that he did not have $200,000 to pay the bill.

Everyone is just cringing in their seats, asking -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member from Grand Falls-Buchans that her time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MS THISTLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I heard from your colleagues, that they were going to give me no leave. I thank you for this time. I will rise to sit again, I am sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. In doing so, I want to speak about student debt and its collection. You know, we have all, as members of this House, encountered young people who have had difficulties in facing student loan debt and dealing with collection officials. On the principle that, if you have to face the music it is better to deal with one agency than two, I don't have a problem. On the principle of the bill - we are at second reading here - that is not a problem for me.

What I do have a problem with, Mr. Speaker, is not only the amount of the student loan debt but in many cases the source of the student loan debt. One of the problems that we have had in the past - the previous speaker and her administration were involved in a lot of this, but particularly there was a high watermark in this Province of student debt associated with the private college system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We can all recall the failure of the Career Academy, and the thousands of students whose lives were thrown up in the air as a result of the failure of the Career Academy. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was one of those who was very glad to see the Career Academy fail. I say that here in this House and I would probably say it outside the House. I do not know if I would be sued for it or not by the person who was the principal or the president or whatever it was of the Career Academy. I think the Career Academy did a lot of damage to a lot of young people in Newfoundland and Labrador, left them with a lot of debt, left them with debt they could not pay back, left them with debt that was associated with a program that did not give them the means to get a job to pay back the debt. We have a lot of students in this Province, a lot of young people in this Province, whose careers were derailed, put on hold, whose lives were made miserable by a combination of that kind of debt and a change that was made by the Government of Canada to the Bankruptcy Act, a combination, a one-two punch from the Legislatures or from governments, both federal and provincial, in the young people's lives in this Province where we had more students, many more than the national average, attending private institutions; institutions that had grown up with the money that was available from the Government of Canada due to the cod moratorium. Some people moved from the fish business to the education business because the money was in education and training on the private sector and they made money there, and then they moved on. They got an appetite for cash. They had a lot of cash, did a lot of advertising, drew in a lot of students.

I am not saying that every private education program was trash; that is not the point. There were some good programs. I am eyeing the Member for St. John's Centre, who is sitting behind the Minister of Education. He and I have had this discussion before. I have to say, for the record, the Member for St. John's Centre, who was very active in a place called Keyin Tech here in St. John's, had some very good programs. He and I were on a few forums debating the issue of private education versus public education. I have to say that, as a spokesman for private education, they could not have chosen a better person because of the experience that I had with his particular program, but he was not typical. He was someone that they were happy to put forward because, unfortunately, he was cover for a lot of very bad practices in other schools. I say that on the record, because I know if I go too far he will be up on points of order and he might be forced to make a speech, which I would be very happy to hear - the Member for St. John's Centre. I would be very happy to hear him join in this speech.

I want to say this: There are a lot of people in this Province, a lot of young people - I am going to concentrate on the Career Academy now, because that is one that I had a lot of experience with students coming to my office. I remember one couple -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

The Member for Kilbride and the Government House Leader, we both recall, and members opposite who were in Opposition would recall, a number of students camped out. It was like the old days of student revolt back in 1960s. They were camped out on the hill of Confederation Building concerned about their futures. We had meetings with them upstairs. We tried to help them go through the process of getting themselves out of the problem that they were in.

I remember one couple, in particular, coming to my office, Mr. Speaker, one young couple in their early twenties, and between the two of them they had been through five different programs at the Career Academy. Neither one of them had a diploma in anything, and between the two of them they had $62,000 in student loan debt. Guess what? They are one of the ones who defaulted, surprise, surprise. In fact, the default rate for student loans for the private college system was two or three times the average for public institutions. I think it was some 14 per cent to 16 per cent for the College of the North Atlantic and the university. It was up to 38 per cent, or something like that, for private colleges. That was devastating to young people in this Province, so much so that when I mentioned this to the Minister of Education the other day, and last year when we had a similar piece of legislation before the House, I remember, just after the election, and maybe members who were there would recall this, there was an orientation session that was held by the Department of Human Resources and Employment to tell new members about the processes that people would go through - the Member for St. John's Centre was there, so he will recall this, too - the processes that were available from the Human Resources and Employment, how the system worked, who the people were, who the contacts were to solve problems that individuals would have in dealing with social services, as it was called then, and now human resources, dealing with people who were trying to get access to programs.

They talked about one of their programs which was especially aimed at young people, getting them into the workforce, young people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-nine who were on social assistance or on Income Support, single individuals who should have a future in Newfoundland and Labrador. They had a special employment program aimed at them, to provide them the kind of supports that they would need to get off Income Support and get into the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in that program because it sounded like it was very good. It was sort of a new program. What they said was, well, in order to try and prove the success of this program, in order to convince the powers that be in government to actually keep funding it and add more funding, we are going to try it out on the young people who we think have the best chance of success in getting into the workforce. We are going to take those people who have a high school education, maybe have some post-secondary. Do you know what they reported? This was the officials, now, just telling new MHAs - I went to the program to see what they had to say, to see if I could learn something. I wasn't a new MHA but I was there because I - the Member for St. John's Centre was there. I do not know but the Member for St. John's North was there. We were told that the single largest barrier to employment for these young people was the fact that they had student loan debt that they could not pay, that they were in default of, and it was primarily from the private institutions that they had a student loan debt but they did not have a program that was going to help them get a job; and, if they got a job, the minute they got a job, there was somebody on to them. The collection agencies were after them, they were garnishing their wages, they were taking their money, so they said: Well, there is no point. There is no point getting involved with employment. I may as well be outside the system, work for a few hobbles, work for cash, perhaps not report your income, whatever else you do when you cannot be official because you have no way out.

You know, Mr. Speaker, those individuals could not declare bankruptcy. They had no right to declare bankruptcy for ten years. Ten years. So, you take a nineteen-year-old and say: Look, you owe $13,000 - it might as well be $30,000, it might as well be $60,000, because they cannot pay it, and every time they got a job there was somebody on to them, taking their wages.

The Government of Canada, because there were a few people - and I am sure there were - there were a few people who had medical degrees, and three and four degrees, and they might have amassed $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 debt, they went out and declared bankruptcy and then they continued their medical practice the next day making $60,000 or $70,000 or $80,000 or $90,000 or $100,000 and they were abusing the system. Under the influence of the Reform Party in Ottawa, the Government of Canada changed the Bankruptcy Act and said you could not go bankrupt. If you went bankrupt, you could not get discharged from your student loan debt.

So this is about the same collection agency. The federal government collection agency is now going to be having the right to collect a provincial government's debt too. I do not have a problem with that, if - the if is one that I mentioned this time last year, and I mentioned it again to the minister the other day, and I would like to put on the record because I hope somebody is listening, somebody in Treasury Board. The previous speaker on this side of the House was the President of Treasury Board, and perhaps she could have enlightened us as to the practice of Treasury Board in getting rid of debt, writing off debt.

MS THISTLE: Treasury Board is gone.

MR. HARRIS: Treasury Board is gone. Well, Treasury Board is being given powers by this act so I do not know where it has gone.

MS THISTLE: They are in name only.

MR. HARRIS: It says here in Clause 3 that the corporation may, subject to rules established by the Treasury Board, write off certain debts. So there is obviously a Treasury Board there. They make some rules. The Treasury Board is still there. Maybe the former President of Treasury Board is gone, but the Treasury Board is not gone. She may be gone from Treasury Board, but Treasury Board is still there.

MS THISTLE: The Treasury Board Secretariat will be dissolved according to (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, the Treasury Board Secretariat may be dissolved but the Treasury Board is still there. I do not know about the Secretariat. The Secretariat is not the Treasury Board.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member has already spoken and can't speak again, because she could correct the record.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this because this is something that impacts on the lives of young people in this Province who are former students, whether they are students who have a degree from the university or they got a course from the former trades school, now the College of the North Atlantic, or whether they got a program at a private college. I am not a big fan of the private colleges; I don't think that is any secret.

I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: I have to say, I am surprised, I have not heard anything since October of 2003 from this government to give any encouragement to the expansion of private colleges in education in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am glad to hear that. I am glad to say that. I have not heard. Now, maybe there is something going on behind the scenes that I do not know about. Maybe the former principal of Keyin College can enlighten us, but I have not heard anything.

When I heard about the White Paper on Post-Secondary Education, I was concerned, Mr. Speaker. I was concerned because I knew there was a big lobby on the go, Mr. Speaker. I was surprised. I was pleasantly surprised. I am saying this for the record, Mr. Speaker, because I call a spade a spade here. If I want to criticize, I do not hesitate to do so, but I will say this: I have not seen, in the White Paper, despite all the lobbying efforts that were undertaken by the organization representing private colleges - not everything that goes under the private colleges act, by the way, is bad. On numerous occasions - and sometimes I have difficulty explaining to the people involved in the trade unions, who have organized very good and positive courses under the private colleges act, I must say, it should not be there; there should be some other regime for that. The reason they have been doing that, and I have said this before to the previous Administration and I will say it here, the reason that the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, the reason that the electricians, the reason that the trowel trades, the bricklayers union, the reason that all of these organizations have set up some of their programs is because the public system has failed the trades. I am hoping that is going to change.

We have heard some indication, certainly, from this Administration that recognition of the importance of trades is back on the front burner again. I was delighted to see that our high school curriculum is going to give some special recognition and new programs to ensure that those students who are not academically inclined, or as academically inclined as some others, have an opportunity to fulfill their goals in life. We can't have a system that is designed, specifically and only, to flow people into academic training. That is like saying, the only reason to go to university is to become a university professor. Some university professors might think that, but people go to university to get an education so they can go out and work. People go to high school and don't necessarily want to go on to university. People go to high school to get some basic education and training and hopefully to find a path for themselves for the future. There are many people who don't see themselves going beyond high school on academic issues, but have terrific talent in many other areas where they don't even get a look in. They don't get a chance to express their talent in that way. So, I am glad to see the changes I have seen in that area.

I am straying slightly from this, but it is important because we have to see that what has happened in the past - and part of the problem of the private schools has been the failure of the public system to meet the needs of people, the varying needs of young people, in terms of getting a proper education, in terms of getting something that they feel is going to direct them into a proper career in life and allow them to make a living.

The more programs at the College of the North Atlantic that respond to the needs of people, the less reliance people are going to have on the private college system. I have a lot of problems, as I say, with a lot of aspects of that. One of the biggest problems I have with it, Mr. Speaker, is when you looked, year after year, at the statistics on the defaulting loans rates, you would see that the higher students loans and the larger number of defaults were coming from these programs. Unhappily, Mr. Speaker, and sadly for these young people, a lot of these students didn't even have a program they could take to get a job, or if they did get a job it didn't pay them enough to even pay their student loans. We have young people stymied in their careers because of that and no real way out.

That is the issue I will get back to that I have discussed with the minister. I hope that somebody actually takes this up and devises a program that actually tries to find a way to determine that deficits - or they call them deficits, but in fact a student loan default that is unable to be paid. If you can't go through bankruptcy, at least the Province can write off the provincial portion. If you had a way of saying, okay, we have this young person before us who has applied to have his loan wiped out, because he or she can't pay, needs to get this kind of relief to be able to get on with their lives, are not going to be able to pay or can only pay a minimal amount, can you write off the rest of this and let me get on with my life? That is what I would like to see, Mr. Speaker. The power is here in this legislation to do that. The power is here under Treasury Board. Now, I do not necessarily think Treasury Board is probably the most sympathetic body in government to deal with this. I do not think they are.

The President of Treasury Board is very good at hanging on to the few cents, although I did not hear him today, but I gather he said to the Leader of the Opposition - he referred to a minuscule $300,000 being given to Garrison Guitars. I have never heard the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board ever refer to $300,000 as minuscule before, but I want to say to him and to government that the kind of money that can ruin a young person's life in a student loan debt, who has no education and half a program or a semester of a program that has cost him $20,000 or $15,000 or $10,000, they have no future, and Treasury Board should regard that as being a write-off and let someone get on with their lives.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that under this legislation, the power is there, the Department of Education will ask Treasury Board or will set up a committee that would make recommendations of Treasury Board, that will hear appeals from students who are in a situation of student loan debt and that will make - on compassionate grounds based on the kind of criteria that can be set down - provision to actually make recommendations that they expect to be acted on by Treasury Board in terms of writing off this debt.

So, I probably have gone beyond my twenty minutes, and I guess I am getting a little indulgence from the House, but if I may just clue up here, Mr. Speaker, without going through the formal process of getting leave. I do support the changes that are being made here that are going to make on the one hand collection more efficient, but on the other hand, from the debtor's point of view, allow them to deal with at least only one person instead of two different agencies and have to make a compromise of one, only to find that the other one is going to take their - I just made a deal with the feds and now the Province is going to take my paycheque and vice versa. That has happened, Mr. Speaker.

Anybody out there, by the way, who is listening and concerned about student loan debt, there are credit counselling services. I would urge anybody who is in these problems to contact a credit counselling service to find out ways of meeting these obligations. If you do have a problem and if you cannot see your way clear under any circumstances in paying off your student loan debt without ruining yourself for the rest of your young adulthood, ask the Minister of Education to set in motion a procedure to write off the provincial portion of the debt so you can get on with your life. If you cannot go bankrupt, you now have a recourse under this legislation -

MR. SPEAKER (Harding): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just another minute or so to finish.

So, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation. This is a good section where there is, actually, an opportunity to write off. I do not know if that was there before. It is now there and clear in black and white, that Treasury Board can write off student loan debt, the provincial portion. I urge the minister and her department to put in place a process to allow individuals to go to a committee or to an appeals board or to some sort of ministerial discretion even, to ask for recommendation to Treasury Board that their particular debt be written off so that they can get on with their lives. I am not talking about people avoiding their responsibilities. I am talking about people whose situation is so desperate that their future is at stake unless this debt is gotten rid of.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we support the legislation and I appreciate the opportunity to say these few words and thank hon. members opposite for leave.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise as well this afternoon to have a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

That being a money bill, I guess I could speak to anything that government collects money on or spends money on, I should say, but I will try and limit my remarks in the first part of my speech to education and some of the comments that were made in the House today, not about student debt. I want to talk about student debt, but before I do, I guess we all know students who have astronomical student loans once they graduate from university and they appear to be getting larger and larger and larger as time goes on.

We are here talking about student loans and student assistance. We heard the Minister of Finance today stand in this House and talk about a loan guarantee that was given to a guitar company to set up a factory in China. When questioned about that, of why we could not get the details pertaining to that transaction, and questioning why the Auditor General, as well, could not get the details and why the Minister of Finance voted against it and the Premier overruled him and gave that company the money, the Minister of Finance finally rose in defence of the Premier today and talked about he gave that guitar company a minuscule $300,000. Just imagine! What a change we have seen in that minister in the past couple of years. What a transformation that has come over that gentleman when he talked about cutting every single service that we provide to the people of this Province and raising every single fee in the Province.

We heard the minister say today that they gave this guitar company, to set up a plant in China, a minuscule $300,000. Well, I guess the students that my colleague, the Leader of the NDP was talking about today and the debts that they owe, they would not consider $300,000 a minuscule amount of money that the government gave away. I am sure that anyone out there today in any area of this Province, whether they be students or unemployed trades people, or unemployed fisherpeople, would say: Give me the minuscule $300,000.

Let's talk about student debt, Mr. Speaker, because when we were in government, or at least after I was elected in 1996, I think that the government of which I was a part tried to do the best that we could under the circumstances with regard to student debt. I know there were times back in the early to mid-1990s when the government of the day had to raise tuition fees in certain institutions in our Province. Under the leadership of Roger Grimes, when he was Premier, we certainly did the best we could to lower tuition. In fact, for three consecutive years we lowered tuition at Memorial University and froze tuition at the other post-secondary institutions, such as CONA that are operated by the provincial government. In the first year of those three years, we decreased the tuition at Memorial University by10 per cent. In the second year we decreased it by 10 per cent, and in the third year we decreased it by 5 per cent, for an accumulative decrease of somewhere around 26 per cent, if my math is correct.

All the while we were decreasing tuition, we still heard the Opposition, led by today's Minister of Finance, complaining that we were not doing enough for the debt loads of our youth who are attending post-secondary institutions in our Province. I remember those comments well when we used to say that we were striving and we had accomplished the feat of having the lowest tuition rates in the country. The Opposition Finance critic, who is today's Minister of Finance, used to get up and rail about how we did not, how there was one province - and I think he used Quebec all the time as an example - that had a lower tuition rate, but he did not figure in the fact that the Quebec government treated foreign students somewhat different than we did when it came to tuition.

I was certainly proud to be a part of the government of the day that lowered tuition by 25 per cent. At least we knew we were on the right track. Then from that point until 2003, when we were defeated as a government, we froze tuition at post-secondary institutions in the Province, like MUN and CONA. That was not enough for the Opposition when they were sitting over here, because they continued to talk about the need to reduce debt loads and they always talked about the Irish model. Because today's Premier had made a trip over there and the Minister of Finance knew a fair bit about Ireland, they always talked about the need for this Province to implement the Irish model. For those of you who do not know the Irish model, at least according to the Premier and the Minister of Finance, in Ireland tuition was free. They did not have to go to Ireland to find out and call it the Irish model. They could have called it the Joey Smallwood model, because when Joey Smallwood established Memorial University or the new campus of Memorial University in the 1960s, after becoming Premier, one of the first things that he did was bring in free tuition at Memorial University, so that people like myself from around the bay could come to St. John's and attend a post-secondary institute of higher learning, something that none of my parents or grandparents could afford to do. As a result, I am deeply grateful for one Joseph R. Smallwood for allowing us the opportunity to avail of a higher education.

I notice, like a lot of things with the members who now sit in the government, they have changed their minds considerably from the days when they sat over here in Opposition and complained that tuition rates were too high, that students have too large a debt, and that something needed to be done. They certainly had me convinced, sitting on the other side of the floor, that once they took control of government then students in this Province were going to be given free tuition, and that somehow this government was going to subsidize their post-secondary education to the point where they would come out with very little, if any, debt once completing whatever course that student wished to pursue.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a lot and heard a lot about this government and how they changed their direction in this short crossing of the floor of the House of Assembly. It is only about fifteen feet from here over to there, but it almost seems like you have to go through some kind of machine that transforms one from what one was to what one becomes in that short little journey across the floor of the House of Assembly. I have never seen the likes of what happened to the Minister of Finance. Today took the cake in my estimation. An individual who has raised the fees on the ferries to Fogo Island and Change Islands, the man who has increased every single fee that the residents of this Province pay, because they have no money, and then he gets up talking about giving a loan to a company in this Province to set up a factory in China and a warehouse in New Jersey. He talks about: We only gave them a minuscule $300,000.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to student debt, fortunately, I guess, my son, because both my wife and I work, is not eligible for a student loan. That is fortunate for him, but sort of unfortunate for me and my wife because we have to foot the bill. I know, having lived in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that if I were still living on New World Island today the amount of money that I would have to be spending to send my children to Memorial University. I certainly would hope that the government would see the light and try to provide some kind of further assistance, at least to those who live outside the capital city and Corner Brook, try to provide some extra financial assistance for those students who have to travel away from home to attend a post-secondary institution.

One thing that I used to find somewhat disconcerting when I was a student myself and hung around with a group of people who lived and were residents of St. John's - they would say, well my parents are not doing anything for me, my parents are not paying for my education, or they would say something like that. Well, the fact of the matter is they could go home for supper that night and get a free meal from their parents, whereas I had to rely, like all of my friends and relatives, on student loans. I guess they did not realize actually what their parents were contributing to them, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly like to see more being done to reduce the debt loads, because I deal on a daily basis with students from my own district who are calling looking for some assistance, because they owe $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 in student loans. They have graduated, they cannot find employment in this job, but that does not stop the creditors from preying upon them. That does not stop the banks and the financial institutions. I guess the government now is going to be taking control of that, certainly doing everything in their power to make sure that you pay your student loans. I see no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. If you owe the money you should pay it, if, I say, Mr. Speaker, you have the ability. In most cases with the people that I deal with, the students who have graduated do not have the ability to pay, but they are still being hounded by collection agencies who have chased them from town to town practically, and from province to province, tracking them down to find out if they made a dollar so they could take it from them.

It has always been a policy of both the federal and provincial governments that you do not pay back your student loans until you graduate, and then you get six months of interest-free forgiveness. In other words, Mr. Speaker, you did not have to start paying your loan until six months after you graduated, and the period up until that six months was exhausted you did not have to pay any interest on. What she could not understand was, why was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador intercepting her $1,000 Millennium Scholarship when she wasn't even supposed to be paying on her student loan until after she graduated. In talking to the bureaucrats in the Department of Education and the Department of Finance, it proved to be that she was, indeed, right and that they were taking the money because they calculated her student loan on a certain need that she had and also on her capacity to pay. What they did not calculate was that the few dollars she made last summer were spent long before the Millennium Scholarship arrived. This was not the type of student who went out and blew her student loan on frivolous things. She is a very serious student. Unfortunately, that happened to her. The ironic thing about is, a couple of years prior to her receiving a Millennium Scholarship her sister received one and she was allowed to keep the $1,000 that she got from the federal government in her Millennium Scholarship.

There are a bunch of issues that need to be addressed in government. I thought that, having listened to my colleagues opposite when they were in Opposition, that they were going to do great things for education, but we haven't seen a lot of that. The Member for Mount Pearl got up last night and bragged and boasted loudly about how this government put more into education last year than any other government prior to it. Well, Mr. Speaker, there could be nothing further from the truth. I think that anyone opposite who has been around this House for as long as I have will realize very quickly that what he was talking about was completely false, and I will certainly present the details of that later, because he talked about $100 million being spent on education, and it was the largest amount that a government ever put in a budget.

I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, having been an educator himself and, if I am not mistaken, the principal at O'Donel in Mount Pearl, he should know the difference. He should not get up and make those statements unless he has checked his facts.

He pats himself on the back, and everybody else in his government, for leaving 100 teachers in the education system this year, like it never happened before, and how proud he was of that, and what a great stride this was forward for the education of our youth; but, he forgot to tell the people who are listening outside of this House of Assembly, on television sets around the Province, that it was this same government of which he is so proud that eliminated nearly 500 teachers from our education system in the two years prior to this one.

He talked about, by leaving 100 teachers in the system, they were actually investing $5 million additional money into the education system. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know his logic; because what he is saying is, we invested $5 million additional dollars, when he actually did not invest any additional dollars; they just did not lay people off.

I would like to inform my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl, that when we were government, even when we had to take some teachers out of the system, we always left 218 or 228 in there. If you did the calculation on that, by leaving 100 in the system, he was saving or giving $5 million to the teachers of the Province, but we always left 218. What I say to the member opposite, we left in an addition of $10 million in the system every year, but he does not like to talk about that because he has a selective memory. I think that he also forgets, as well, the amount of money that the Liberal government, of which I was a part, the repairs, renovations and the construction that we undertook not only with the St. John's Campus of Memorial University but also in Western Newfoundland, in Corner Brook, at the college there, along with the renovations, repairs and the upkeep that we did on all the vocational schools that CONA operate in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk for great lengths on this particular piece of legislation, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. I do not see a lot of assistance in this act. I think it talks a lot about how to make sure that students, at the end of the day, pay their student loans once they graduate. I tell you, it does not talk about giving these students additional money. I do not see anywhere in this bill where they are actually giving students more financial assistance.

Maybe the Minister of Education can stand later and explain to me why she would entitle that bill the Financial Assistance Act, because I see no financial assistance in this for students. I see things about how they are going to now settle debts and claims. I see how they are going to take over the collections themselves, I think, last year, because they bought the student loans out of the banks, took over, and set up a corporation where they are going to handle the financing of student loans themselves.

I see absolutely nothing in this bill that is going to help the poor students who are, day after day, increasing the debt that they are going to owe before they come out and graduate from a higher institute of learning and trying to find a job in this Province. I pity them in that regard, too, because not only are they going to be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but they are also going to be confronting a reality that there is nowhere for them to find a job in this Province.

I have been listening to CBC television and radio in the past few weeks, and some of the comments that they make about out-migration in this Province are absolutely frightening. Absolutely frightening! They talked about the Burin Peninsula, and towns on the Connaigre Peninsula like Harbour Breton. Then, they talked about communities on the Burin Peninsula like Fortune, Lord's Cove, and areas like that.

Yesterday afternoon, on the way home, I had the occasion to turn on the Fisheries Broadcast, as I am apt to do at 5:30 p.m. on a given day. Right at the end of that program they were talking about out-migration on the Southern Avalon, in an area that is called the Irish Loop. They said that people are leaving that area faster than water would flow through a basket.

You have to wonder, when the members opposite talk about how things are rosy, where students, our youth, are going to find jobs when they graduate; because, as we speak, there is a convocation going on at MUN, or will be next week, and there will literally be thousands of people who will graduate from that institution. They will be all on the streets of this Province in a few short weeks. They probably are already, because the term is over and most of those graduates are now submitting applications, and have been for quite some time, for employment somewhere in this Province. Boy, I tell you, they already realize that jobs are very scarce. As they used to say out in Carbonear, jobs are as scarce as hen's teeth. It is even getting worst than that. If it is any possible way to be any scarcer than hen's teeth, I think that finding a job for a highly qualified, highly educated young person in this Province today is literally impossible. As a result, these youth are having to leave the Province to seek employment elsewhere.

I know from my own perspective that my son, he is twenty-one years old, he is in a third degree program in Business at Memorial University, he left and went to Kelowna, B.C., seeking employment. Last year he was in Whistler, B.C., seeking employment, because he could not find employment here, and if he did he would make $6.50 an hour. That would hardly keep him in - I was going to say cigarettes, but he doesn't smoke. He certainly would not been able to save any money to go back to university in the fall, on $6.50 an hour, so I appreciate that he took the initiative last year and went to Whistler. In two months in Whistler, B.C., he made over $6,000 - in two months.

Mr. Speaker, he didn't come home with $6,000 but he did file an income tax return this year and he got $1,100 back in income tax, so that is $1,100 more than he would have had if he had stayed in Newfoundland and Labrador and worked last summer. This summer, he has gone back to B.C., to a place called Kelowna. I hope that he does as well there as he did in Whistler last year.

It is not just him, Mr. Speaker. Half of his class of Business are out in B.C. this summer working. That is a sad reflection on the state of the economy in a Province that prides itself on being the second-largest producer of oil in Canada. When you think about that, and you compare us to the largest producer of oil in Canada, Alberta, there is no comparison. It is a sad reflection on what is happening.

Unfortunately, I know they say I am a naysayer and I am the preacher of doom and gloom, but I think what I have said about the economy of this Province, the problems that I have been saying and my colleagues have been saying here for the last five or six months, especially in the fishery, are coming home to roost. If I am not mistaken, there is about to be some other bad news announced in the fishery - if it has not already been announced - in the next twenty-four hours, and we are going to see many, many hundreds of more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without work in the next few days. I just hope what I heard here this afternoon in the House of Assembly was somehow misunderstood and that it is not true because we are facing devastation in a lot of rural communities.

As I gave a petition in the House of Assembly today from the residents of the Norther Peninsula - you might ask why the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has been asked to present a petition to this hon. House on behalf of the residents of the Northern Peninsula? I asked that question, Mr. Speaker, when contacted by those residents to submit their petition today: Why are you asking me? I have asked a number of people in that area in recent days - as those who have been watching this House of Assembly at home know full well that I have raised the issue of: What is happening to the fish plants in New Ferolle and what is happening to the fish plant in Black Duck Cove and what is happening to the fish plant in Anchor Point?

When I asked the question of those individuals from the Northern Peninsula: Why have you chosen me to do the petition? You have two government members representing you on the Northen Peninsula, one of whom is in Cabinet. One of them is a Cabinet Minister and you are asking me, a lowly Opposition member, to present a petition on your behalf. The answer comes back in every case, Mr. Speaker: We have no one to speak for us. That is another sad scenario. We have no one to speak for us because we have two government members and they either do not want to speak up on our behalf or they are afraid to. When asked: What do you mean, they are afraid to? Well, the answer to that question comes up invariably: Well, look at what happened to Fabian Manning last year. Look at what happened to Beth Marshall the year before.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad scenario when you are being paid a salary to represent the people in your district -

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Member for Lake Melville is at it again today, I say to the Government House Leader. I was only going to have a few words last night but after listening to the Member for Lake Melville I could give speeches from now until next year this time on some of the inaccuracies that he spreads around the House and some of the comments that he makes. I will not say more because I am not apt to insult people in the House of Assembly.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the answer that comes back invariably from the people of the Northern Peninsula is that it is no good for them to ask their members to rise in the House of Assembly and represent them and present petitions on their behalf because they will not do it. They just will not do it, and that is pretty unfortunate.

I remember well when the Member for The Straits & White Bay North sat over here as the Fisheries critic, and I remember well when the Member for St. Barbe sat over here, only he was not as robust as his colleague from up the coast because he is a man of few words, as we all know. When they were sitting over here I do not think there was a day in the House of Assembly or in the media in this Province that we never heard from, or about, a community on the Northern Peninsula and the out-migration.

I asked a question recently of a number of people, and you know their names. The Member for St. Barbe knows their names and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North knows their names because they were probably some of the most vocal people in the Province. If I mentioned their names now you would all know them. The Mayor of Bird Cove - we all know the Mayor of Bird Cove. You did not go up or down the Northern Peninsula without knowing the Mayor of Bird Cove. What my comment to her - and I was not always on the complimentary side of her comments, I say to those opposite, but there is one thing that I did, and that is I respected her views and her wishes because she only had one thing at heart, and that was to do something for the people in her town and for the people of the Northern Peninsula.

I asked: Why aren't we hearing from a lot of these people anymore? Now I know that the Mayor of Bird Cove, her health is not as great as it used to be, but there are others upon that coast who are just as vocal. You would walk into a meeting, they would shake your hand and some of them would give you a kiss on the cheek. Then as soon as the meeting would start they would tear a strip off you like you would not believe and say: We are going to take a bulldozer and block the road before you get home tonight, minister. I have had that happen to me up there.

Where are these people? Why don't we hear from these people? There are two answers of why we are not hearing from these people, that I have been given. One, there is no one left up there to speak out. The other says that they have been beaten into submission by this government and they realize that this government is not going to do anything for them to the point that they do not complain anymore. Now that is a sad scenario. That is a sad scenario, because how many times did I hear the minister, or the previous Minister of Fisheries, the Member for The Straits & White Bay stand in this House of Assembly, or mention on the air about the U-hauls leaving the Northern Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair grants - and it is the practice of the House to give some wide latitude to members at second reading. However, second reading does and should adhere to the principle of relevancy to the principles of the bill itself. In this particular case we are discussing or debating a bill relative to student loans. While the Chair is certainly anxious to hear what the member has to say, and I am sure that the member will make the matter relevant, I would ask him if he could keep his comments relevant to the principle of the bill at second reading.

I invite him to show the relevancy, and of course the Chair would then be able to respect his participation and welcome his comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your guidance, I always do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am getting to that, Mr. Speaker, because anyone who knows anything about the English language and the writing of argumentation and persuasion, you always know that you start your argument - and there are a couple of ways you can start it. You can say: In this essay, or in this argument I am going to do this, this, this. There is another old trick, that you start out in the beginning and talk about something, as I did. I talked about the youth in our Province and the lack of financial assistance by the government and the problem that some youth in our Province are going to experience when they graduate from a post-secondary institution and they are going to be looking for jobs in this Province so they can pay back their student loans.

I know I got a little sidetracked, or it might appear that way to those who are listening, because I am talking about the fishery on the Northern Peninsula and individuals on the Northern Peninsula. Well, I say that those individuals on the Northern Peninsula also have youth who are attending post-secondary institutions. They are also graduating and they are also being left with large sums of debt that they are going to have to repay to the provincial government and the federal governments of the Province. The point I am trying to make is that if these youth are looking for jobs in this Province to help pay back these student loans - and that is what this act is about, how these students are going to pay back their student loans, then they are going to have to find jobs.

What I am trying to say here to you, Mr. Speaker, it is called closed by return - for those of you out there who have done any study of the English language. It is called close by return, and I will close by return because I am going to go right back to where I started in the beginning and say that we are not doing enough for these youth. I am already after telling you now how I am going to close so you will not be surprised now at the end when I do it, I say to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your guidance. I will clue up on that little bit that I was talking about on the Northern Peninsula about why they are calling me and we do not hear anymore about the U-Hauls leaving the Northern Peninsula from places like Flower's Cove, Gunners Cove, St. Anthony and Black Duck Cove. We do not hear about that anymore. Mr. Speaker, bur the fact that you do not hear about it does not mean that these youth, who are graduating from Memorial University, are going to find jobs on the Northern Peninsula, believe me. The fact that you are not hearing about the out-migration and the hard times that exist on the Northern Peninsula does not mean that a student from a post-secondary institution is going to be able to find his or her way back to the Northern Peninsula and find the type of employment that is going to enable he or she to pay back the money that they are going to owe this government because of their post-secondary institution.

How am I doing with that, Mr. Speaker? Am I getting to the relevance?

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that is basically what I am talking about. I used the Northern Peninsula as an example today because I know in the past few months I have talked a lot about the Connaigre Peninsular and places like Harbour Breton. I have talked at length on Fortune and Marystown and FPI in the last few months. People have called me and asked me: Why are you always talking about these towns, because there are others out there in similar situations, towns in which the youth are not going to be able to go back and find employment and pay off their student loans, which this bill is about, I say, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the Northern Peninsula today, and in days to come we will certainly be talking about other areas in the Province where students not only attend post-secondary institutions in places like Gander and Grand Falls and Corner Brook and Stephenville and Carbonear and -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly. I say to the Leader of the NDP, he made a good point about, what about the students who have to travel to larger centres to go to a post-secondary institution. I addressed that earlier, I say to the member, but it is a good point. I already asked if this government would consider -

MR. PARSONS: But it bears repeating.

MR. REID: It bears repeating, I say to the Leader of the NDP, because we think a lot along the same lines. I am somewhat more socialist than I am leaning to the right wing (inaudible) over there.

MR. HARRIS: I am surprised you did not run for the leadership of our party.

MR. REID: I am sorry, I missed the point.

MR. HARRIS: I am surprised you did not run for the leadership of our party.

MR. REID: Well, the Leader of the NDP said he is surprised that I did not run for the Leader of the NDP. Boy, I can guarantee you, it crossed my mind. Because there are days in the House of Assembly when I am convinced that I am far more socialist than the Leader of the NDP. There are certainly days, and we can talk at length about that but the Speaker is going to tell me that it is not relevant and has nothing to do with student assistance. But I thank you for your comments.

On a more serious note, I agree with the Leader of the NDP 100 per cent, that for those who have to leave home to travel to a post-secondary institution, these individuals should certainly be given some little extra assistance from government to enable them to do so, especially when we look at what is happening around the Province today. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now, there are not too many parents in my district who can afford to pay the extra costs associated with sending their children to St. John's or Gander or Corner Brook or Grand Falls or wherever they wish to go. There is not too much money kicking around in my district.

My fear, in talking to graduation classes, is that because of the expenses associated with a post-secondary education, and because of the fact that their families are finding it very difficult and they cannot give them the extra $20 or $30 when they go home on a weekend to tide them over or to try and buy a few things when they are in St. John's or somewhere else during the week, that these students, instead of registering for post-secondary education when they finished Grade XII, are now being enticed away to places like Alberta.

My colleague, the Member for Bellevue, attended a graduation, I think it was in Crescent Collegiate in his district last week, and he said, for the time in the seventeen years since he has been elected and attending graduations, it is the first time that he spoke to a number of students in that graduating class who are not going to attend a post-secondary institute in this Province or any other province. Do you know what they are saying? I am going to go away to Alberta first to make some money. It always had been my experience as a teacher to find that those who do that - it works for some, but I found that for the vast majority of students who do not continue their education after they graduate from Grade XII now and go directly to a post-secondary institution, the vast majority of them, if they go out somewhere and take a job for a year or two, they do not return to further their education.

The answer to that is simple. At least, if they come from a family that is not as well off and they graduate from high school and they go to a post secondary institution, they can get a student loan. If they take that year off and they go to a place like Fort McMurray and they make $10,000 or $15,000 or $30,000 next year, guess what happens to them? They do not always save that money and put in a sock so that they can come back to go to a post-secondary institution. They spent it and then when they apply for a student loan to go in the fall of the following year after graduating, guess what happens? The government looks at them and says: Sorry, we can't take you. We can't give you a student loan because you made too much money. As a result, that could possibly be another career ended, nipped in the bud very quickly. What I always recommend at graduations that I go to is that you stay in school, that you go on to a post-secondary institution. If you want to take that year off, take it off after you graduate from a post-secondary institution rather than high school.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that these students - children for the most part. I did not think I was a child at eighteen, but it seems to me, where I am getting older, that eighteen seems like you are only a child now. For these youth to be leaving places like Trinity Bay and going to Alberta directly after graduating from university - you know the type of job they are going to get. They are going to get -

AN HON. MEMBER: High school?

MR. REID: After leaving high school, yes. After graduating from Grade XII and going to a place like Alberta, the only job you are going to get is unskilled labour. You have to ask yourself the question: Who is doing the unskilled labour in Alberta today? I don't know if any of you have friends or relatives living in Alberta, because I have both. What I understand now is that companies in the Alberta tar sands are going to Mexico and hiring people. They are saying to the Americans, if you don't want these illegal immigrants we will take them and make them legal immigrants into Canada. That is a sad scenario, if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the best and brightest we have, are leaving high school and going to Alberta to work to compete for jobs with Mexicans, the ones that the United States government won't allow into their country. That is a sad scenario.

I just hope that when I sit down today the Minister of Education, when she stands to talk to this bill, will tell me where, in this bill, is she talking about giving students more assistance. In assistance I am not talking about loans, I am talking about grants like they had when Joey Smallwood was Premier. I am talking about grants to go to university to help students become more educated. We talk about resources but the old adage says, our best resource and our most valued resource is our youth. I don't need to tell those opposite that. I will guarantee you, my two sons are my best resources. I would really and truly appreciate it, if once they graduate from a post-secondary institution in a few short years that they be able to find employment here in this Province. I can tell you right now, I can pretty well bet you what I own that is not going to be possible.

The other thing about that, I say, Mr. Speaker, is even if they do, if they are lucky enough, one in a thousand or one in ten thousand, to find gainful employment in this Province, they won't be getting paid what they are worth comparably speaking with a Province like Alberta. They just won't. Employers know when they come into this Province that the people in this Province have an urge to stay home. They want to live in Newfoundland and Labrador because they were born and raised here. Because they know that these individuals want to stay at home, then they don't have to pay them as much to keep them here. That is a sad scenario.

Mr. Speaker, I know I was permitted an hour and I do not think I came anywhere near it, but we will have lots of opportunity tonight, and late into the night, to have a talk about education, even though that will not be the bill; because, Mr. Speaker, there is one act that we are going to be discussing here in the next little while that you are not really going to be able to ask me if it was relevant. Mr. Speaker, you will not be able to ask me, because it is my understanding, under the Tobacco Act, it is a money bill and I can speak about what I want.

I think, Mr. Speaker, last night I spoke six or seven times about the Tobacco Act. I only once mentioned cigarettes, and that was only in reference to the fact that, after watching the Minister of Finance go into such a rant and a rave, he should have gone out by the door and had a cigarette to calm his nerves.

Mr. Speaker, on a serious note to end this, I would hope that this government, who waxed eloquently when they were on this side of the floor about what they would like to see done with the cost of a post-secondary education to the point that they quoted the Irish model, I prefer to call it the Joey Smallwood model, of free tuition, all you have done is frozen tuition at Memorial University and CONA. We did that for two or three years, and we also reduced tuition by 26 per cent over three years in part of the term that I have been elected here. I feel proud that we were able to do it, especially in a climate when we had no money.

We hear the Minister of Finance now talk about surplus budgets, and the great GDPs. I did not really realize until today how flushed we are with cash. I really did not, because every now and then the Finance Minister lets it slip. On any given day he is out there saying: Oh, yes, while we are doing well and we are getting our deficits under control, we still have no money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, that is right.

He says we still have no money so don't go asking me for anything. Don't ask me to lower the rate that is charged for a licence or licence plates, or to give paramedics $200,000, I think they were looking for, Mr. Speaker. They were demonstrating here yesterday. You had to close the House of Assembly. They were looking for $200,000 to hire a number of employees and be able to put enough crews on the road to handle the emergencies in the greater St. John's area. They are looking for $200,000, but the Minister of Finance could not - even though he committed to it, or pretty close to committed to it when he was in Opposition. He was going to fix that problem. We find now that he cannot give them a measly $200,000 when he admitted today that he could loan a company $300,000 to set up a plant in China and a warehouse in the United States, and guess what he called the $300,000? We only gave them a minuscule $300,000.

That speaks volumes to me. That means when the Minister of Finance - the fella I accused last night, if he were living in a different age, would steal the pennies out of the eyes of someone in a casket, you know, he is that frugal - when he is talking about a minuscule $300,000, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot more money and a lot more surplus than this government leads us to believe.

I will tell you one thing, and I do not think you would get any criticism - there would be nothing but praise from this side, and I am sure I can speak for the Leader of the NDP - if you took some of that new-found wealth that you have today and put it into something to deal with student debt, especially for those who have to travel in this Province to attend post-secondary institutions, we would applaud you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take maybe three or four minutes to speak to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we count?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, you can, I say to the hon. member; he can count the minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to begin by saying that I believe every young person who applies for a student loan, whether it is provincial or federal, they sign into the contracts with every good intention to not be placed into some difficult positions.

I listened with interest this evening as the minister outlined that there are probably some 9,700 student loans that are outstanding in this Province totalling some $69 million, and I thought she said increasing $1 million on a monthly basis. Now, I may have misunderstood her.

I can understand where you are trying to put more teeth into the bill, I guess, to see that those outstanding amounts are collected and dealt with properly. Also, I am of the understanding that any issue that is outstanding for over a nine-month time frame will be more or less dealt jointly with and handled by the federal government. I guess it is not a concern that I have, I know that this has to be done and will be done, but in many cases - and I have had situations in my own district. I had one case where two young people finished university, both of them had quite an amount owning in student loans, and they eventually ended up getting married. This young gentleman, unfortunately, his father had passed away a few years previous and the house was left in his name. His mother was living there and would stay there until the day that she moved on, or what have you. They got into a difficult position after they got married and found that they were unable to pay the amounts that were asked of them to pay on their student loans.

Lo and behold, it was turned over to the collection agency. I know that is what happens when you fall behind, but it was a sad situation to know that a collection agency, when they received this information, tried to take over the house because it was in his name, and see that his mother was placed on the street.

That is the only comment I want to make. I am sure the minister will be looking into this. I think those issues have to be dealt with on a compassionate basis more so. I have had dealings with Revenue Canada and other federal agencies who, when they see an amount coming in that is to be collected - and we are going into a joint agreement with the federal government - lots of times they do not look too kindly to a situation, regardless of what financial difficulties those young people may find themselves in.

The other comment I want to conclude with is that many of those students, early on, find themselves into those difficult positions and probably are unable to deal with it in a nine-month time frame. Many of them cannot find the jobs that they were trained for here in the Province and they have to travel outside of this Province. It is very costly for them to get settled away, when they move to another Province. It takes a period of time for them to get on their feet, so that they would be able to pay on their student loans.

The only item I want to make on this is that hopefully when this bill is passed there will be some compassion by those who, whatever side it is on, do the collections on behalf of the outstanding debts, and that those individuals who find themselves in difficult positions will be given every opportunity. I know there is a nine-month time frame, but sometimes they may have to go beyond that.

Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude with that and hope that whomever, whether it is the federal government, which it is in this case, will have a bit more compassion and the minister will see that this message gets through to the proper authorities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank all of the hon. members who participated in this debate this afternoon.

Any time we speak of any type of legislation or bill that affects students and post-secondary students, it certainly becomes very near and dear to people's hearts in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of us have either been through the system or have children in the system or who will be going through the system.

I know we will have the opportunity to continue with this debate and ask some questions for some clarification, but the primary purpose of this bill certainly is to look at an integrated approach for collections, and we can discuss that further as this debate continues in the House.

For the purposes of today, I would like to conclude the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance 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: A bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 29)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to discuss matters relating to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

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.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

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

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words and ask if the minister can answer some questions on this bill. I know we had some discussion about the private colleges issue, and some discussion about the role or the circumstances of students who - I say rural Newfoundland, but rural only in the sense that they are not in a centre where they go to an educational institution. If you live in St. John's and you decide you want to go to CONA, or you want to go to MUN, your transportation expenses are the cost of a bus pass on a monthly basis. If you are in Corner Brook and you are going to the College of the North Atlantic campus there, or going to Grenfell College, or the various campuses in Baie Verte, the campus of the College of the North Atlantic, you do not have lodging expenses and transportation to and from your place. If you are a Labrador student coming to St. John's, obviously you have to pay significant transportation costs.

I just want to relate my own experience, Mr. Chairman. Some people talked about Joey Smallwood days, and all that sort of stuff, but my own experience as a young person growing up in this Province was, for me, in St. John's. That was just an accident of birth, Mr. Chairman; it had nothing to do with me. I happen to be born in St. John's. Our family, we had eight children. I was able to go to university because I could walk to university. I was able to go to university because there was no tuition. I was able to go to university because I had a summer job the summer before and I had $150 saved up and I could buy my books - but, you take away any one of those three, Mr. Chairman, and I would not have been able to go to university because my family did not have the means to do that. The kind of expenses that would have been associated if I lived in rural Newfoundland and had to come to Memorial University, with our family's financial circumstances, the idea of taking on a massive student loan would have probably been beyond the kind of expectations that I would have had. I would not have been able to think I could pay it off. You would not necessarily have the kind of confidence that you need to take it on. So, I have an understanding of this issue from the point of view of someone who has been there.

You know, when we were having these debates in the House in the mid-1990s about private colleges, about tuition, the people who were in this House at the time, the then Minister of Education, Roger Grimes, then the Premier, he was the Minister of Education and he had the same kind of advantages that I had. He had free tuition, and the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune had free tuition. We are kind of the lucky generation, I suppose, of Newfoundlanders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile had a living allowance. I didn't have that. That was a little bit before my time, but we were the lucky generation, the lucky generation of Newfoundland and Labrador students who had the advantage of being able to get virtually a free education.

When I left university, I owed $600 in student loans. I wish that every student in Newfoundland and Labrador could leave university or the College of the North Atlantic without a significant student loan debt so that they could go on and carry on their education; because, you know, we talk about out-migration a lot in this House but a lot of times we do not connect. We do not make the connection between having to leave Newfoundland and Labrador to get a job and having a huge debt to get rid of.

You talk to any medical student, Mr. Chairman. I talked to the Medical Student Society last year. They wanted to have a meeting to talk about the issue of tuition and student debt. One of the things they said was: If I didn't owe $75,000 at the end of my medical school training, it would be a lot easier for me to go to work in Baie Verte or the Twillingate hospital or somewhere in rural Newfoundland where I am needed, where I would like to go, where I want to go. They may even be from there but they feel they have to go somewhere so they can get rid of their debt fast so they get on with the next stage of their life.

Now the Member for Trinity North seems to making funny faces over there. I do not know if it is something I am saying or something the Member for Topsail is saying to him.

But that is true, Mr. Chairman. You ask a young woman twenty-eight years old getting a medical degree, what she wants to do next. If she is married she wants to get rid of her debt. She wants to start a family. She wants to get into the next stage of her life. She does not want to have to pay $75,000 or $80,000 in student debt. So they are attracted to jobs in other parts of the country, in other parts, in some cases, of the United States who will look after that debt, who will give them a big salary, give them a signing bonus. So student debt is an inhibitor to keeping people working in Newfoundland and Labrador and keeping people working in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the Minister of Education would know that and would understand that. I am sure if she could pry some of these minuscule amounts of money from the Minister of Finance, that we might have a different program for student aid because it is an important issue.

I know I only have ten minutes here, so I will clue up this particular part of it, and ask her whether she is able to provide the House with any figures on the level of student debt that comes from students who are from rural Newfoundland and Labrador as opposed to urban? Now, I have heard figures from some of the student organizations saying that the debt for rural students may be, in some cases, double. The figure I have heard is double. The average student debt for rural students is in the neighbourhood of $30,000 for rural students, but closer to $15,000 to $20,000 for urban students in a four-year degree program. That is a university program. I do not have exact access to the stats, and I have asked the student organization if they had any but they did not have anything more specific than that - because I think that is an important piece of information that we need to know.

Most people in this House represent rural districts. If there was one thing that could be done to increase the fairness for access to post-secondary education in Newfoundland and Labrador will be a program that would level the playing field between students who must travel from their home to get post-secondary education and students who are already there. Some people go to a private college or a private institution because they are in their hometown. I know people in Bay Roberts, the only reason they are going to a private college is because the private college is in Bay Roberts and because they can go there without having to live away from home. Students who would much prefer to go to a program in St. John's or elsewhere are going to a private college at great expense with a less attractive reputation in terms of the ability to make a living with that program, but they are going to private colleges because they are in their hometown.

So if we had a system that would level the playing fields for students who must travel away from home to go to post-secondary education, we would be far better off and young people would be far better off and that requires a little different approach. Maybe a needs based grants program has to be the answer instead of a student loan program where we have a very high default rate. If you have a very high default rate, you are losing your money anyway and you are losing it to defaulting students. In the case of private institutions, you are also actually subsidizing those private institutions because their default rate - I have heard, and we have seen statistics before - are much higher.

There are two questions for the minister: Is she able to give us any statistics on the average student loan debt, the graduating debt, or the ultimate debt of students from rural versus urban, or rural versus urban, being Corner Brook, St. John's or places where you can go to post-secondary, and if she has any figures on the default rate for the private colleges versus the public institutions, the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University? My experience in the past is that those figures have shown that the student loan default rate for university and the public colleges are much lower, which leads me to the conclusion, it may be simplistic, but leads me to the conclusion that the students who attend those institutions have a much better opportunity to get a job that pays them well enough to be able to look after their student loan debt and to get on with their lives. Whereas somebody who goes to a private college, and makes that choice - I do not think it is an even choice, but if they make that choice, for whatever reason, that they do not have the same experience in getting a job that pays them enough to look after their debt, or they do not succeed in completing a program and therefore default on their loans and the public has to pick up the tab. That becomes an indirect subsidy for these private colleges.

I wonder if the minister is able to answer that. I can possibly have a few more comments. I know the previous Minister of Education was asked those questions before and there seemed to be a big diversity between the public and private, and maybe the minister has some figures she can share with us.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

It is certainly an interesting debate when we talk about the amount of loan that students accumulate during their time in post secondary. I sit here and listen, and last night I heard from the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and again today, and I have heard it from different members, about the fact that they did not have to pay tuition. I do not know what year that actually stopped, but I can tell you I think it stopped too soon. It was not in effect in 1982, I wish it was, when I started university. We sit here and people keep hammering away at it, and for all of us who did not receive the free tuition we certainly do not like the fact that policy changed, whatever year that may have changed.

When people come from rural Newfoundland, they do have an added additional expense just to attend post-secondary institutions. Some people are able to avail of the residence and that provided a convenience that goes with that. Other people have to set up apartments. Not everyone has the ability to live with relatives or family members, and it always adds to the expense. Even from the Stephenville area or from the Codroy Valley, when students have to travel, especially into St. John's, there is airfare or there is a full day on a bus and it is expensive to travel that way as well, where parents have to try to provide the transportation.

I know there are differences in the cost, and I am very aware of that. At this point, as a government, we have certainly looked at the post-secondary system and tried to exam where we need to make investments. The White Paper has certainly been very instrumental in helping us provide some strategy as to where we are going with our post-secondary institutions.

One thing that we have been able to do is freeze the tuition. That does not solve all the problems, especially for students in rural Newfoundland, but I really feel it is a step in the right direction. We have been able to freeze that for three years. There is more to it than just being able to freeze tuition. As we did that, we have also had to, in three years, invested $90 million in the post-secondary education system.

We need to look at the aging infrastructure and we need to look at what is necessary in order to be able to keep a tuition freeze in place. I am certainly not closing the door on what we can do in the future to look at student debt and student loans and how we can improve the system. We have certainly taken a very comprehensive approach in the poverty reduction strategy and we are going to move through that this year, next year, the year after, and for, hopefully, the next ten or fifteen years. It is certainly going to be a long-term strategy before we see some real tangible results from the initiatives that we take. It is like the violence prevention and poverty reduction, it takes years actually to see the results there. We are well aware of those issues.

There are also issues associated, as the hon. member had said, with different default rates, because we have, certainly, Memorial University with campuses in Corner Brook and as well here in St. John's. We have seventeen campuses of the College of the North Atlantic, and I believe there are probably thirty private colleges in Newfoundland and Labrador, each with their different default rate. I think the hon. member asked, what would be the default rate, because this whole bill is about collections and about people who default on their student loan. I can give you some numbers, some statistics that I have available to me. There is no agreement on a national level as to what default on a student loan means. Although this will be the best information that I have available to me, that came from the department, there may be some questions or concerns about the definition of a default.

The information I have shows the year 2001-2002, and then again in the year 2003. The default rate for private colleges in 2001-2002 was 40.6; in 2002-2003 it was 43.9; the College of the North Atlantic in 2001-2002 was 29.2; then, in 2002-2003 it was 25.5. MUN was consistent both years at 15.9. The default rates, obviously - as the information provided to me - may not necessarily meet everyone's definition. There is no agreed upon definition. That is the best available information that I have available for this debate here this afternoon.

I just want to reiterate, the issues with regard to urban versus rural are real issues. We are not able to address them in this particular bill today, but what we are probably getting at right now is certainly the collection of loans that are in default through this particular legislation, this amendment.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we will take our regular dinner break now until 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it by agreement that this House now recess until 7:00 p.m.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Agreed.

This House now stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to continue hearing debate on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Student Financial Assistance Act, of course, deals with the collection of student loan debt from defaulting students who have student loans but do not pay them, are unable to pay them or they do not pay them. Usually it is because they are unable to, Mr. Chairman.

Before the recess for the supper break, I had asked the Minister of Education if she could tell us, from her figures, what the average student loans were for students who are rural students versus urban students. In other words, students who had to pay additional expenses to go to post-secondary education. She did indicate, of course, that there was a lot of money spent by this government in improving the infrastructure of colleges and universities, and there is no doubt that the university and the public college system has gotten a big assist from particularly this most recent Budget - a new campus for Labrador West, additional monies for Memorial University - and all of this is extremely important, that we have a first-class, first-rate public college system in the Province, but I guess, when we are talking about student assistance here, we are really talking about access.

The minister mentioned, and one of the other speakers mentioned - I think the Leader of the Opposition talked about the freeze in tuition, and the lowering of tuition. I know the minister herself lamented the fact that free tuition was not available when she was a student, so we have gone from free to freeze, I guess. At least we are frozen for people coming today.

I will say this, though, Mr. Chairman: Newfoundland and Labrador is bucking the trend. We are bucking the national trend which has seen rises in post-secondary education fees, particularly university fees, for students across this country. We have seen the professional schools go through the roof. In fact, in Ontario they have lifted any government control over it whatsoever and the tuition fees for law schools and medical schools and engineering schools in Ontario have gone through the roof, $20,000 and $30,000. What does that do? What it really does is limit access to a university education to those who are fortunate enough to have the means, or their families have the means, to get to post-secondary education, and it leaves those behind who may have the desire, who may have the ability, but do not have the means, either their own means or the ability to take on the huge cost and expense of a big student loan debt.

We saw the Conservative government in Ottawa, for example, responding to the issue of rising costs of education by rasing the student loan limit. Well, all that does, Mr. Chairman, is create a large debt for those who go to university, who manage to get there, who do not have the means to do so.

It is very interesting to know that, while we are bucking the trend, it is something that we really ought to do; because access to post-secondary education, whether it be the College of the North Atlantic or whether it be the university, is the key to having a more equal society. It is one of the major keys, one of the major ways for people to get out of whatever social and economic situation they were born in, until they, themselves, create a future for themselves. Access to post-secondary education is what makes the difference.

I appreciate that this government has paid attention to the infrastructure needs of our post-secondary system. I have praised the White Paper for its forward-looking view of the role in post-secondary education and, as I said earlier, I was very pleasantly surprised that I did not see any real support for the expansion of the private education system, the private post-secondary system.

The minister, before the supper break, actually gave us the figures from her department on the student loan default rates in this Province for both the university, the college system and the private system. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I am astounded. I am really astounded at the remarkable differences. The most recent rates are for 2003: 15.9 per cent, let's say 16 per cent; the College of the North Atlantic, 25.5 per cent; and the private college system, 43.9 per cent, let's say 44 per cent. That is almost three times the difference between MUN and the private colleges, and that is actually an astounding number.

I have to say, first of all, that I think a student loan default rate of 16 per cent for a university is quite high. That is one in six. One in six students who come out of university have defaulted on their student loans. I think even that is quite high, especially when you realize that, if you look at the statistics, it is only about, I think it is slightly more than half of university students who actually access student loans. In other words, almost 50 per cent of students can actually go to university without having students loans. So, of the remainder, 16 per cent of them are defaulting on their students loans; I presume because they cannot get jobs fast enough or get jobs that pay them enough to be able to pay off their student loan and therefore they default.

I think that is even high, Mr. Chairman, because we really should have a situation where students, when they come out of university, particularly if they have a degree, can get a job and look after these students loans, if they have them. So it seems to me that something is wrong. The student loan debt is too high.

I wonder, if you examined that default rate, would you see a big difference between the size of the student loan debt and the default rate? My guess is that you will see the same kind of disparity between urban and rural in the default rate as you see in the actual full amount of the loan, because I think that students who have to travel or pay living expenses - I guess that is the real word - some travel, but living expenses to attend post-secondary education, that is where the real disparity lies.

I think if this government wants to make a big difference for the long run in social equality and social justice in Newfoundland, a significant attempt will be made to reduce that disparity between urban and rural.

I am surprised again that 25 per cent of the students who go to the College of the North Atlantic end up defaulting on student loans. Again, I wonder what the reasons behind that are. Is it the size of the debt? Is it because the programs do not give them an opportunity for a job? Or, is there some other reason? Maybe that is something that the Minister of Education should actually look in to, because again that seems fairly high to see that one in four young people who go to the College of the North Atlantic to get a program ends up defaulting on their student loan because they cannot pay it. I think we have a problem if one in four students at our public college ends up defaulting on a student loan, because that is a burden for them and it interferes, obviously, with their ability to carry on, and may lead and may contribute again, to our out-migration, to having to go somewhere else to get work to discharge that debt.

What is really astounding, Mr. Chairman, is the numbers for the private colleges. Forty-four per cent of the student debt, in default, 44 per cent of the defaulters, are from the private college, or 44 per cent of the default rate is from students getting loans for private colleges. That, to me, spells a disaster, that almost half, six points off half, of the students who get a student loan to attend a private college are defaulting on their student loans.

Now, who picks up the responsibility for that, Mr. Chairman? Obviously, if you can collect the money, if the collection agencies are effective and go after these young people who have this debt and garnishee their wages or get some kind of - as the Member for Port de Grave said, in one case, and I find it hard to accept that you could take someone's house when it was left to a young fellow, and the mother being thrown out on the street. I would have thought that the Matrimonial Property Act would have protected the surviving spouse from that kind of a situation but, anyway I take the member at his word, that the situation arose where the young fellow's father died, left the house to him, the mother was still in the house, and yet the house was lost because of student loan debt. That would have to be a very unusual circumstance, but the fact that 44 per cent of people attending private colleges are in default, somebody has to pick up the tab and at the end of the day it is the government who guarantees these loans -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Could I just have a minute and then I will let someone else speak?

So, 44 per cent of the people attending private colleges and getting student loans default on their student loans. That tells us something about the private college system and what it is doing or not doing for young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I hope I will get another chance to speak, Mr. Chairman. I wonder, does the minister - I guess I can ask her directly whether she does have any figures on, I guess, the total of student loans, the average student loan for students who must live away from home to attend college or university versus those who can attend living at home and go to the Baie Verte campus, for example, of CONA, or the Corner Brook campus of MUN, or the St. John's campus of MUN. If the minister has those figures, I would be very happy to hear them.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: I would like to address some of the issues brought forward by the hon. member. Although I do have some information on the stats between urban versus rural, I do not have a number to give on that but I have asked the officials at the department to put that together. I do not have that number right now. I am hoping I will have it real soon, actually.

I do want to comment on a couple of issues. The hon. member mentioned that he was surprised at the default rate for the College of the North Atlantic, and it was certainly high, when I looked at the statistic for 2002-2003, but that was three years ago. I do not know if it has improved or not - I would hope it has - but in the meantime some of the initiatives that we have undertaken as a government to address some of the issues at the College of the North Atlantic, which I think is a great post-secondary institution that we have in this Province, with its seventeen campuses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, one thing that we have announced in this Budget is the reinstatement of the program development unit at the College of the North Atlantic. They have not had that unit since some time in the early 1990s, and that is the whole unit of program development, where they look at the curriculum and they develop the new courses and they put in courses that they feel will meet the demands within the labour market. My concern is that, without that unit, we have probably been offering courses at that college that may not have very good outcomes when people try to attach to the labour market. So we need to make sure, if we are offering programs in the college, that they do have a value for students who are going in and that they do match the labour market demand that we have.

In addition to that, we have also embarked this year on a Skills Task Force where we are going to be looking at where we are going to have shortages in Newfoundland and Labrador and what the requirements of labour employers and labour will be in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am certainly hoping that information as well can be used to enhance the post-secondary services that we have here.

Mr. Chair, the only comment I want to make is, I do not have a statistic on the average loan between rural versus urban. I know they are looking at it, looking at private versus the college versus university, and how we determine if somebody is urban versus rural certainly depends on all kinds of factors. If I get that information, I will be more than glad to share it here in the House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise tonight to speak to Bill 29.

Obviously, I think we all agree in this House that whatever happens in terms of education in this Province is paramount to the future of our Province and certainly to the economy of our Province. We should never lose sight of the impact that education has, when is comes to out future.

I know that the minister has made the case that this bill is about collections, and I appreciate that, but I guess there are so many issues surrounding student loans, and we have heard so much, I guess, for as long as student loans have existed. I, too, was not the beneficiary of the grant system where you got to attend college without having to pay tuition, or university without having to pay tuition. I did, indeed, pay tuition, and ended up having a student loan. So, as much as, I guess, it was good for those who did have that opportunity, and is something I would like to see, because I think it is really important, I, too, while I recognize it as something that happens in Ireland, and we always refer to the Irish model, I think we can look to our own Province and our own history and see, again, how well others did as beneficiaries of a system where, in fact, they were able to attend post-secondary education at no cost to them directly. Obviously there was a cost to the taxpayer, but that is what society is all about. It is about being able to provide those services that will, in the end, benefit our people and, in so doing, benefit our Province.

We have so many issues today with respect to student loans and, as my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi said, we do not really know the cause for a lot of them, you know. We have people graduating from programs, whether it is in the university setting or in the college setting or in private colleges, and when they graduate, in many cases, the employment becomes a factor for them because, in some case, they cannot find a job that is going to pay them any more than the minimum wage.

If you have a student who has a student loan, say, of $25,000, how does a student with a loan of $25,000 pay it back under the terms and conditions that they are expected to by the lending agencies, by the federal government, by the Province? How do they pay that back and be able to live? It is just impossible for them to do so, if they are making minimum wage or even if they are making $10 or $12 an hour.

I think that is something that we all should take seriously because, you know, the students I know, and the ones who approached me when I was the Minister of Education or even as an MHA in this Province for the District of Grand Bank, the students who have approached me, they do not want to be in debt. They want to be able to make their payments. What they are asking is for someone to acknowledge that there comes a time when they just cannot do that for whatever reason.

I think we all should be cognizant of the fact that young people today want to be responsible. They are, by and large, responsible, but when they have a student loan that is in the thousands and thousands of dollars and they are faced with either employment that pays minimum wage or thereabouts, or no employment, how can they possibly respond in a positive manner when someone comes to them and says: You owe this amount of money, and we expect you to pay this amount in this particular time frame.

It is a serious issue and one, I guess, that we have all, as MHAs, certainly, I would expect, have had representation from our constituents, people who are trying to improve their lives. We are always suggesting to young people that it is pointless now to try and find employment if you just have Grade 12. We are always encouraging young people that they must, in fact, go on to post-secondary education if they really want to have a career, if they want to be productive members of society. We are always saying to them that the best thing you could possibly do is get a post-secondary education. So in some respects, I guess, we all need to take some responsibility for sending the message that post-secondary education is the answer when it comes to being able to get a job and continue to exist and avail of whatever opportunities that are out there that present themselves to young people today.

Whether or not that is the right way to go, in light of what is happening in some cases to some young people, I do not know. I do not know the answers. I know that sometimes it puts young people in a very difficult situation, some people who may, in fact, find employment without going to post-secondary education, without incurring that student loan.

I know, for instance, of a young woman who has two degrees, a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Science degree, and she is working at a department store here in the city. You can imagine what her student loan was, and she is expected to pay back that student loan working for maybe about $8 an hour. It is difficult. She is a married woman now, has a family to raise, and all the expenses that go with that, because you cannot abdicate the responsibility you have to your family. They have to eat. They have to have a vehicle to get back and forth, and all of the other expenses that come with raising children, but still they have this burden that they have to contend with. How do they do that? How do they deal and juggle all of these expenses that they have, all of these responsibilities that they have, when, in fact, they just do not have the income?

I guess, like my colleague for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I, too, would ask the question: Have we thought about, or should we now be thinking about, some way of looking at situations on a one-by-one basis and recognizing that you cannot put everyone in the same category? There are differences that occur in everyone's lives, things that happen that are cause for concern for them, and they have to try and contend with those.

I know that post-secondary education, obviously, is something that we all advocate. No longer is Grade 12 sufficient if you want to get that good job, as the saying goes. We know that with the few jobs that are available we have people applying for whatever job is out there. Many of them have two and three degrees, but they are applying for those jobs because the jobs are not available in the area in which they specialized. So we are finding ourselves in a situation, our young people, when they graduate, not wanting to leave Newfoundland and Labrador, and we all know today that there is a problem there. We know. We are seeing out-migration. We are seeing young people leave, not just from the rural areas of our Province but from that urban areas as well because the jobs are not available for them, particularly jobs available in the area for which they have been trained or the careers that they have been pursuing, so, you know, by choice in some cases they look to leave the Province, and I have always said there is nothing wrong with a young person leaving the Province if it is their choice to do so. The difficulty comes when they cannot find the employment or jobs available in their own province when, in fact, they want to stay here.

I look again at what happens when we talk about student loans and how young people have to get students loans, because going to university and going to college is an expensive proposition. Any way you look at it, even with what we have done, what we did as a previous Administration and what this government has done with respect to continuing to freeze tuition rates, trying to avail of a post-secondary education is indeed a very expensive proposition. I do not know sometimes if we recognize the cost associated and the burden that is placed on young people and their families.

I know that, in cases where students cannot avail of a student loan because of the parental income - and today I think we all acknowledge that you probably need to have two people working in order to even live a comfortable existence, no matter where you live in this country. That is certainly the case in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it still remains the case no matter if you are in urban centres or if you are in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So, when students apply for a student loan and they are told that, because of their parents' income they cannot avail of a student loan, then the onus on that student becomes that much more difficult because then they have to go elsewhere. They know their parents cannot afford to contribute in any significant way to their post-secondary education. So, the onus comes on them to find the money elsewhere, and in a lot of cases they turn to the banks. I know that there are a lot of students who, in fact, avail of loans through chartered banks so they can continue on to post-secondary education. Then, of course, they then have to start paying that back once they graduate.

I think the whole idea of taking into account the parental income is one that needs to be looked at, given just the cost of living these days. Whether it is the price of gas or whether it is the heating oil or whether it is just transportation costs or whether it is clothing costs, food costs, the cost of living is such today that it really does take two people to really be able to provide for a family. I think, if you have someone who is going to a post-secondary institution who is going to incur significant costs by doing so, they need to be able to avail of whatever is available to them; and, in availing of whatever funding is available to them, we need to take into account circumstances that may present themselves when they graduate that may make it impossible for them to pay back the student loan in a timely fashion. I mean, I am not suggesting that there isn't any leeway given, because I know that there is in some cases.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her speaking time is up.

MS FOOTE: Leave to continue?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess, when I look at the bill itself, I do have some questions for the minister. I would like to know what this means in terms of collecting outstanding student loans, or collecting just on the student loan itself. Instead of a collection agency, will the Province, in fact, be doing its own collecting? Will it be the same type of system put in place that we have had with the collecting of school tax, for instance, where we would have people hired within the provincial government to do the collecting? That is one question I have. I am just wondering how that will work.

The other thing, I guess, is, if the minister would just take an example of a student who has a $30,000 student loan and what this will mean if they cannot make the payments, for instance, upon graduation, or if they are given a six-month leeway, how do these amendments relate to an individual in that circumstance? What kind of leeway will they be given? Those are just two of the questions I have for now.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to address some of the questions the hon. Member for Grand Bank just posed, but, before I do so, I just want to make a comment on some of the questions that were posed by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi about the average student loan.

I know there are many ways we can look at the average student loan but this is a very basic number and it does not necessarily involve the colleges and all kinds of other factors, but, on a very basic level of an undergraduate student going to Memorial University from an urban area the average loan is $27,500 and the average loan for a person from rural Newfoundland who completes an undergraduate degree at Memorial is $34,500. Now, I know there are many ways we can look at these numbers, and factors we can bring in, but that was the basic average number that I was given by the Department of Education.

Basically, I want to address some of the issues that were brought forward by the Member for Grand Bank about how the collection process would unfold with regard to the amendments to the act here. One thing that is important to note is that presently the loans that are outstanding right now in Newfoundland and Labrador will not be affected by the amendment under this act. So the present collection process, which includes both the provincial collections with the Student Loan Corporation and with the federal government, will continue as is.

This will affect people on a go-forward basis who default on their student loans. So, once you are in default for nine months, then it will be turned over to the federal collection process. Then, at that point, the federal government do a collection process where they go through various ways to try to collect the money for a twelve-month period. Then, if a person is in default for the nine months, in addition to the twelve months, then it goes over the to private collection agency that would be contracted by the federal government. So the student would have that initial nine months to try to address some of the issues. As well, there would also be a twelve-month period before it would go into a collection agency, which would be the twenty-one month period. In addition to that, there would also be some leeway with regard to settlement or write-off that are in the amendments here, so there would be ways that we could address some of the issues.

The other thing that is interesting to note in these particular amendments is the fact that the last wording, under section 17.8 of the act, goes into talking about the student loan, the settlement of the debt or the claim. It says, the full settlement of the debt or the claim in accordance with the collections agreement or the rules that the board may establish.

Those are some of the things that can be brought in under this particular amendment, that we can now establish some of the rules around this. I know some of the rules around hardship right now center around financial hardship, whether it sometimes, unfortunately, is death or disability, but we will be able to put more rules around that. So there certainly needs to be a way that we can deal with real financial hardship cases, and this will help us have the ability to do that.

The whole gist of the legislation here this evening, the amendment, is to set up the integrated collections so that, right now, as a student applies for a loan, they deal with just one agency or one level of contact. When, unfortunately, it gets to the point of default or collections they will not be having to deal with a collector on a provincial and a collector on a federal end; it would be a more streamlined process. In saying that, there would be nine months first before it goes over to the federal government, and then they would have their own internal services that they provide for twelve months before it goes into a collection agency.

That would be the process, and I hope that answers some of the questions you brought forward this evening.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for obtaining these figures, recognizing the limitations and that it really deals with perhaps a rough calculation based on an undergraduate at MUN from an urban or rural area, but I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that $27,500 for an urban student and $7,000 more for rural students is a big difference - $7,000 - but I have to say, compared to my student loan, I think I said earlier that I had free tuition at MUN and I was of the lucky generation. The Minister of Education was later than that, and the Member for Grand Bank, obviously, didn't get the advantage of that, but I was able to come out of university, not from a family that had any money, but I was able to come out of university without a student loan debt. The prospect of this kind of debt, even taking inflation into account, Mr. Chairman, has to be a major, major barrier and, in fact, a major burden to young people just having gotten an education, trying to get a start in life, hoping to build a job and a career, a lot of people looking to buy a car, start a family, all of these things.

Some people wonder, Mr. Chairman, and we have had some statistics recently about the falling birth rate in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I want to say that I have been told by young women that a major reason for the falling birth rate is student loans; that student loans are a barrier that makes people put off, young women put off, having a family, put off having children, in some cases put off getting married, young people putting off a weeding, putting off getting married, because of student loan debt.

It is a significant thing, and I know we are bucking the trend and I am glad we are because the national trend is going the wrong way. We are going the way towards greater equality of access, greater opportunity, greater ability of people, regardless of financial circumstances, to get an education; but, at the end of the day, if you get that education and you owe $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000, that is one of the things that puts your next phase of your life a little later on, so that the average birth rate, the birth age of a women giving birth in this Province, I think, was running around twenty-eight-and-a-half years or something now. That is the average, so half are above that and half are below that. We see it affect our population. We see effects on out-migration. We see effects on the fact that people have to go elsewhere to get a job, and get a higher paying job in the case of professionals in some cases, medical school graduates, even nurses who come out of nursing school.

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not know about the Member for St. John's North, but I am talking about real people and real things.

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yeah, it is almost like a sociological phenomena, that if you have a nurse coming out with an RN, with a student loan debt, getting on the casual call list does not cut it. They are going to go somewhere else and get a job to pay off the student debt so they can get on with their life. It is a very serious issue, and if this Province is able to turn the corner on student tuition by saying, we have a freeze - I do not think the next point of attack should be to eliminate tuition, by the way. I am going to say that, and students might not like it because a lot of times student groups talk about getting rid of tuition, and free tuition was a great thing that happened in the past.

I think the next money that is going to be spent on student aid ought to be spent on providing a means-based, means-tested grants system so that we lower the overall student debt that people come out with when they finish a college or a university degree, that we should direct money towards that and that we should try to narrow the gap and eliminate the gap between urban and rural students so we have greater equality of access. That is where I think the next money ought to be spent to get greater equality. It would improve the quality of access to post-secondary education. By lowering the overall average student debt at the end of the day, we are going to allow young people to get on with their lives faster, and more young people will be able to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that we would have a better system and better social justice. I think that is a very important direction for us to go in.

I want to say - and I do not want to prolong debate on this, but it is a very important issue to me and to a lot of young people - but I do want end off by saying something about the private colleges. I and my Party, for the last ten years, have spent a lot of time talking about private colleges, and Opposition, to the notion that education is something that ought to be an industry. Post-secondary education ought to be a right for students, that the public system ought to be in the forefront of providing education for young people.

We are asking for details here on the default rate. We have the default rates, and we are getting on to that. We have found that the default rate here is 44 per cent for private colleges. That is an astounding figure, I want to say to the Government House Leader. I want to use my next couple of minutes to say why I think we really ought to question ourselves, whether we ought to be essentially subsidizing the profits of a private enterprise at the expense of students ending up in default to the tune of half of those who attend the private colleges. They end up defaulting on student loans and the Province has to pick up the default if they cannot collect the money. All we are doing really is subsidizing a system that does not work for young people, with the exception, I have to say, of the work that is being done by the unions in providing trades training which I suspect, if you took them out of the mix here, you would not see the trades training being provided by the unions, providing a significant amount to this. I think we have to really examine the level of support being given to private colleges through the student loan system and the cost to taxpayers. I would like to see that money go to supporting a student aid system that could make sure that young people do not have to come out of University with such a high level of student debt, and so have extra access to post-secondary education.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to get back to the minister on the amendment itself where it says, this "would allow the Student Loan Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador itself to write off debts related to student loans that are subject to a collection agreement entered into with the federal government".

I guess my question for the minister is: Is that something that the Province can look at in isolation of the federal government, when you say that would allow the student corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador itself to write off debts related to student loans? I am just wondering whether or not that would imply that the Province could do it of its own, or if in fact they have to do it in conjunction with the federal government. I am also wondering: If there is any change here with respect to the Student Loan Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, who actually is going to comprise the Student Loan Corporation if there are any changes to that, and whether or not the department itself will have sufficient say into how these loans are handled, bearing in mind that of course it is difficult for a lot of our young people, given the circumstances in which they find themselves, to somehow be able to repay their loans in a time and a manner that would be consistent with what is expected of them? I guess what I am asking is, if there would be, as a result of these amendments, that kind of flexibility built in there that would take into account, maybe, the sensitivity that is required, and if the department would have the flexibility through the Student Loan Corporation to in fact look at these?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: I would like to address some of the issues as just brought forward there by the Member for Grand Bank.

This amendment of the act will allow the corporation, the board of the corporation, to draw up rules which they do not have the ability to do now, and there is no change in the composition of the board of the corporation. These rules would be applied to circumstances around the settlement, which would mean somebody would settle the loan, no longer owe money or writeoff. Sometimes the writeoff - I interpreted it when I started going through this particular amendment, and writeoff to me meant it was written off, you did not have to pay it. It was certainly explained that there is a big difference between writeoff and settlement. There would be the ability of the corporation to put rules around writeoff and, as well, rules around settlement. The corporation does not have the ability to do that now, so we will be able to look at some circumstances that we may be able to bring forward that we may be able to apply to the writeoff or the settlement. This is part of a ongoing process within the corporation and the rules have not been drafted yet. The development of those rules would follow this amendment, because then they would have the ability to continue to do that.

I hope I answered your questions.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your answers. I guess I am just trying to get some sense of where there is some flexibility in there to take into account the sensitivities associated with particular cases. I think that is there based on what you have said.

I guess, if you could just clarify for those probably watching, the difference between the writeoff and the settlement, I think that would be important to do, because there are a lot of students out there who would question the differentiation there.

I guess the other thing too that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Oh, absolutely, yes.

The other thing, minister, I guess, would be in terms of when you are writing these rules or those guidelines around the Student Loan Corporation, to make it easier for students and their families, whether or not the consultation will take place with students and whether it would be the executive of the Students' Union at Memorial or whether it is someone at the College of the North Atlantic or the private institutions, to get some sense, firsthand I guess, of what happens and the difficulties that they face.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: I appreciate what the hon. member said about, how do you develop these rules and how do we bring them in, because these rules are going to be very important and very necessary in very specific cases. There are going to be cases of hardship where I do not think we can necessarily forecast what is going to happen to individuals or to people. I am not sure how we will go about it, if there will be a consultation, but there may very well be.

What I think we need to really look at is some of the history of some of the cases that have come forward up to this point that we have not had the ability to help on, and some cases that stand out, to look at what are some of the circumstances that fall outside the rules right now or fall outside the parameters. We certainly have to be able to capture some of that, because as much as you bring in policies and you bring in fairness and you try to have equity and that people are treated all on an equal basis, when you are dealing with human behaviour and dealing with lives there are no absolutes. That is why we need some flexibility around that.

I am going to explain some of the differences between settlement and write off, what some of the these mean. I hope I can explain it to the public without bogging it down and getting into the detail.

In the section that deals with settlement of a debt, the settlement of a debt is a payment that is made that settles the debt so the person no longer owes money once the settlement has been made. According to this, the corporation will be able to negotiate a settlement of the debt where the debt or the claim, the settlement, results in the deficit of $5,000 or less. If the settlement comes in and then the person owes less than $5,000, that can become the settlement. If the settlement does not necessarily pay off the full amount but it comes within $5,000 of a negotiated settlement, that could settle the debt. If that happens and there is a debt settled there are no further payments that would happen. At that point that would go to the minister to write it off at that level. If it is less than $1,000, the board of the corporation, which would be the deputy minister of the department, would be able to accept the settlement and no longer have the debt. I cannot use the word writeoff. There would be two levels. One would be under $1,000 and one would be under $5,000. That is the settlement. Once the settlement is made there is no further money owing in that particular case.

In the case of a writeoff, the deputy minister of the government, who would be part of the board of the corporation, could write off deficits of $1,000 or less. The writeoff of a higher amount could be written off as well, but not at the deputy minister level. The difference between the settlement and the writeoff is the fact that once a person has a writeoff on their loan they still owe the money. They may be held at abeyance for six months or for a year but it will be looked at again. The writeoff does not mean that the debt has been settled, it means that the debt is still on the books and it is still owing. A person may not have collections or may have it put on hold for a period of time, but still owes the money and will probably still be subjected to the collection process.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister's explanation. I just hope that anybody who is watching this has an appreciation for the differences.

What I would ask is: When you talk about writeoff and settlement and specific amounts, would these students then be required to pay that in a lump sum, or are they going to be allowed to pay it off, in terms of - if you reach a settlement say of $5,000 and the minister is able to say that is okay, will they then be expected to pay that in a lump sum?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: It is my understanding there would be a process of negotiation with regards to the payments. They would, I guess, determine at what point of the payments the settlement would have been satisfied. If they write if off they still owe the money, so that will still continue to have to be paid. The writeoff would still be collections at abeyance, they still owe that money, and the collections process could still happen. The settlement would have been a negotiated settlement with a certain amount attached to it, and when the settlement was reached, there would be no more payments required; over time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Should clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Chair, I just have a couple of comments, a couple of quick questions to ask the minister.

She stood earlier here this evening and said that the difference in the cost between a rural student attending a post-secondary institute in an urban area - and I think she used Memorial University as an example - the difference between a rural student going to Memorial University, as opposed to a student from St. John's going to Memorial University, the comparison in cost was that the rural student would pay $34,000 for an undergraduate degree, which is a four year program, compared to $27,000 for a person living in St. John's to do the same degree. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: The numbers I was given for a Memorial University undergraduate degree, before a grant, would be $27,500 urban and $34,500 rural. Now in saying that, we did not readily have those numbers available, so the officials put the numbers together to look at it. In fairness, because somebody is from rural Newfoundland and somebody is from St. John's going to school, there comes a point in time when their expenses, other than transportation, may equal out to students from rural Newfoundland, if they decide to get apartments or move out on their own and are no longer living with their family. Sometimes, I know, it seems that because you are urban you stay with your parents and you may not incur all the same expenses as somebody from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There are times when students who might necessarily be tied to the larger areas do not necessarily live under the parental roof. I had this meeting with the Canadian Federation of Students one time and they were certainly very quick to point that out, that many times because somebody lives in St. John's we often make the assumption they live in the parental home which is not always the case. That may indeed be some of the reason why the numbers are not spread as much as we probably thought they would be.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the minister, I would think that in most instances if somebody wanted to leave their home in St. John's and strike out as an independent student that would be a choice that student would make, and I would say they are in a minority group rather than a majority group of students.

Using the minister's own calculations - and I will do rough estimates here - what she is saying is that for an undergraduate degree, four years, eight terms, the difference between a rural student and an urban student would be $900 a term or roughly $225 a month more, for a student from Virgin Arm to attend Memorial University than for a student from Halley Drive in St. John's attending Memorial University. Is that what you are saying, that is the only difference, $225 a month? Because, Mr. Chair, if that is what the minister is saying I would like to know where these individuals can find accommodations in St. John's so cheaply. Could you tell me where those locations are?

I am only talking about how that is the difference. That has to take into account not only accommodations, rent, but also has to take into account food and travel to and from home. I assume that every one of the students who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador would like to visit home at least once a term. You are telling me that you can find accommodations and pay for your food and travel for $225 a month, that is the only difference in the cost between a rural and an urban student.

Take, as an example, a constituent in the district of my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse. au Clair. You are telling me that the student in her district can attend the University, and between a student from L'Anse au Clair and a student from St. John's the only difference in cost for an undergraduate degree is $225 a month.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, indeed these numbers that I had given were averages that came from the department, but it does not necessarily apply to every single student and it does not mean there are not people who have student loans that are much higher. I know some students live in rural Newfoundland and attended University on a regular basis. I think of examples of students from the Bay St. George area who attend University but do not necessarily live at the residence or in Corner Brook and they commute, whatever their schedule permits them to commute or whatever is required. These are averages.

We all acknowledge, there is no doubt, that it does cost more money if you have living expenses and you travel to a post-secondary institution. These were numbers that were asked for by another member here in the House, and the department put them together. I indicated that they were rough. There are different levels of education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: - and many programs, certainly, are longer than the average undergraduate degree as well.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I hear the Minister of Finance cackling over there tonight. I say, he is supposed to be the mathematical genius. I ask him to do the calculation based on the numbers that the Minister of Education just gave and tell me that I wrong, or explain to me why I am wrong. I say that to a minister who this afternoon talked about a minuscule, giving a grant or a loan to a company, a minuscule $300,000. I can see why he probably would agree with those figures, because what would $37,000 be for a rural student to attend University when you are talking about a minuscule amount of $300,000?

Mr. Chair, I say to the minister, I think that before you go throwing figures out like that, that you get your officials to do a better analysis of that, because I think they are probably embarrassing you by having you spout those figures in the House of Assembly tonight, especially in light of the fact that people travel from as far away as Nain to attend Memorial University. You are trying to tell me that it is only going to cost that individual $225 more a month to live in St. John's than a student, for example, my son who lives on Halley Drive. That is what you are telling me. My son lives at home with me on Halley Drive and a student from Nain can come in here and live for $225 a month more than my son can who lives at home with me. I suggest you get your figures right and talk to your officials before you get up and talk about them again.

Mr. Chair, could the minister tell me how much money a family, whether it be two income or one income, would have to make before a child of that family would not be eligible for a student loan?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I do not have the qualifying figures or the information to talk about the qualifications for a student loan. If we need that information this evening, I can have it sent over so we can have a look at it. I do not have it with me here for the purpose of this amendment this evening.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can give the minister the rough figures that I have gotten from her department in recent months. I think it is around $50,000. They were talking about jacking it up to around $55,000. I may be wrong, but it is somewhere in the area of $50,000. I ask the minister: Do you think that is an acceptable amount for a family to be making, having to live in this Province, probably with two or three other children, do you think that is an acceptable amount to cap such that a student of that family would not be permitted to receive a student loan?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, there are many families in Newfoundland and Labrador who do not make $50,000 a year and who live in poverty, and we certainly have families who make much more. Basically, we look at an average when we look at any type of income. Whether or not $50,000 is the cut off and whether or not I think that is appropriate, I would like for the cut off to be at a point where nobody has any type of hardship and that everyone has there needs met. What they magical number is I am not sure.

When we look at it, certainly there have to be a number of factors that come into eligibility and into whether or not a person qualifies for student loans, and there would certainly be different demands on some families. Some families would think $50,000 was quite a high income based probably on their present income or based on their needs. There are other families with $50,000 who do not have one cent to spare who are probably going from pay cheque to pay cheque, who are probably trying to pay the mortgage, trying to pay the insurance, probably trying to heat their homes, or may have somebody with a disability, and are maybe trying to meet the post-secondary. There are certainly very different demands on families, and if there was a number that we could apply individually to families that would eliminate hardship, I think that would be the way to go. It is very difficult to say, based on different family demands, where they live, what expectations they have, and they may be carrying large debts.

Mr. Chair, if you say it is $50,000, I was not aware of the exact number and we can get that information sent over this evening. I certainly feel that any time there is an income level that does not meet the needs or does not support the students or creates hardship, that is very unfortunate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I want to get back to the writeoff versus the settlement again. I am wondering if we could, because you talked about averages, take an example of a student with a loan of $30,000, who for whatever reason, whatever hardship, cannot make their payments and they have gone the nine months and they have gone the twelve months. Can you give me some indication of what would happen at the end of that period of time?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: The end of the twelve-month period, what would happen after -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: Right. After the nine months it goes into a federal collection process and they would go through the number of processes that they have set up. Then if there remains any default and they are unable to collect it, on the loan, as we would go into the integrated process the federal system would then put it to a private collections agency. The private collections agency would then use their processes in their attempts to collect the money. Once it goes into the collections agency, at the federal level, there are also a number of rules or regulations or safeguards that are attached to that process. I guess a lot of it goes back to the fact that, when we hear the whole idea of collection agencies it almost instills somewhat of a fear and intimidation, or what is going to happen or what is the person going to be subjected to once it gets to that point. Most people, in all fairness, try to avoid that process at all times, because no one wants that happening to them. There are a number of safeguards that the federal government has over the private collection process to try to address issues that would result as harassment or intimidation.

One of the processes that they have is that HRSDC, now Service Canada, certainly investigates all complaints that come in on a private collection agency. They take them seriously. There is also a 1-800 complaint line that is set up for people who are at that level, that they go into the private collections agency, if they needed to register a complaint. There is an issue resolution for ministerial inquiries, and that would be at the federal level as well. There would be instructions to collectors on how to resolve specific complaints. There would be warnings of collectors who are found to be in noncompliance with the directives. There is the immediate removal of a collector if a complaint is found valid or severe. There is removal of the account from the private collections agency if required. They would permanently withdraw the private collections agency from the federal government collection process, if that is required.

It would go through the nine months, it would to through the twelve months, which would be the federal system. Then once it goes into the private collection agency, which would be contracted, that would be some of the safeguards that would be put in for people who would be then having to deal with the private collection agency.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Minister, I appreciate that, but I think we all have constituents who have, in fact, been harassed by collection agencies. No matter how many safeguards there are, at the end of the day, it is not an easy experience for anyone who is on the receiving end of some of these harassing phone calls that they get, to the point where there are threats to have their wages garnisheed. Of course, in a lot of cases they are making minimum wage. While I appreciate what you are saying with respect to safeguards, I am fearful that we are not making any headway in terms of that flexibility, that sensitivity, that needs to be there by whomever is going to be looking at this at the end of the day.

I want to go back again to the question I asked about a student who may have a debt of $30,000, for example, and just cannot make the payments. Can you just give me an explanation of what would transpire there, given that we accept that there is reasonable hardship there and that is not in question. What would transpire to determine whether or not there is going to be a writeoff or a settlement?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: At this time, right now as the rules stand or what leads to a writeoff or a settlement, are very narrow and there are not many examples as to what circumstances would lead to that. Some of the situations that would involve a writeoff at this point and time would be permanent disability or death. Obviously, that would be written off. Then there is also leeway where we would deal with temporary medical or financial hardship. In that case, there would be an assessment completed and it would go into a writeoff, which would be non-collection for a period of time. Then there are also other circumstances we look at, such as if the person is on Income Support. That would be looked at as financial hardship and again would go into writeoff so that situation would be monitored. Another example here, which makes perfectly good sense, would be death. Upon verification of death, the collection stops. I hate to even say that one because it almost sounds like I am being flippant about it, but that is some of the information here.

I think we need to put some rules around that, because there are legitimate cases of financial hardship. That is what I think this amendment can be helpful with, in that we can put some rules around that. I do not think the rules right now really take in a lot of the personal circumstances that people go through. Permanent disability is obviously a very glaring one as well, if someone receives an injury or a disability that is on a permanent basis and they are unable to work, particularly if they have gone through some form of post-secondary and they have trained for the workforce and they cannot follow through on that. I think we really need to look at, as a corporation, what financial hardship means. In saying that, there also has to be a fairness to the people who can pay back. There are many students - and we are talking about ones right now who go into default after nine months and again after twelve months, but they are very few compared to the fact there are many students out there who get out and whether or not they are making high paying jobs, they do their best to pay back their loans and they are very regular on how they make their payments. We certainly need to be fair to them as well, to make sure that we recognize that they are doing what they should be doing and that they do not feel like there is no need to pay it back. So, we need to really look at what the rules are around financial hardship. Like I said, I would like to get in and look at some of the circumstances that have come forward that we have been unable to deal with, because there are going to be some real tangible examples of situations that are out there. I think sometimes, as I said before, it is very difficult to try to predict what all the circumstances should be, but I think we need to be able to be flexible and be realistic when we deal with people who are truly experiencing financial hardship.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: I am not quite sure what the question is on the settlement.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: I guess I understand the whole relationship now around the write-off, but - take that same example again - what would have to happen for that individual to have an account settled?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: To have an account settled, the individual would be probably experiencing some form of disruption within their payment schedule of how they have been paying but they have been able to come forward and be able to pay either a lump sum or a series of payments up to a certain amount of money, and that may be from, say, a set-off perspective where they probably owe $2,000 and they are probably owed through some financial means, whether it is through a federal cheque or something, say, $1,500 and they could say, well, the $1,500 could settle the loan.

Now, that is a very basic example I have there, but that would be an idea of a settlement where the money coming in may not necessarily pay off the full amount, although it could, obviously, and then you do not owe any more, but it could be within reason, under $1,000, or between $1,000 and $5,000 that is satisfactory, that they have made every attempt to pay what they can and settle the particular loan.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is interesting that students are out there right now tonight watching this debate. In fact, there was a call just came to my office and I wanted to ask the minister a question concerning this particular bill.

MS BURKE: Did you say a call just came to your office?

MS THISTLE: Yes, it did.

I do not know why the members opposite are laughing about that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: This is very important to students around the Province.

Anyway, Minister, although I had an opportunity earlier today to speak for an hour, there are questions coming up as we delve into this bill a bit further. One of the questions that were just called into my office, there was a student there wondering: If a student lost their capacity to borrow, either federally or provincially - it is only one loan right now - and they have to go to banks to find the necessary funding they need for university, would the Province now, with designing these new rules, look at helping or be able to eliminate part of their provincial loan? Because they will have to go and get the extra funding through a bank. Do you understand what I mean?

Okay, just say a student, for instance, has used up the capacity available to them through a student loan, a provincial student loan, and they need more money and they have to go to a chartered bank to get that extra money, would the government now, in designing the new rules, look at eliminating or reducing part of the portion of the provincial student loan for that particular student?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: In response to the hon. member's question, I hope I answer it correctly, the whole collections process that we are talking about in this particular amendment is for people who are in default, and it would relate to the collecting of the money that they owe under the Student Loan Corporation. So, it would be a loan, although it is under one application right now and you go to one office and deal with one individual or one agency, in the long run, if things do not work out and you go into default with collections there would still be that one contact, but this whole amendment would deal only with the collection of the student loan. As the loan that is in default is being collected, a portion would come back to the provincial government and a portion would go to the federal government, so this deals more with collections than actually probably refinancing a loan, but once that money goes into default and into collection it would be collected and it would be disbursed back between the federal and the provincial government.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier today, the minister mentioned that there are currently 9,700 student loans in default in our Province. That is a big number of student loans, 9,700 currently in default. I do not know if you mentioned the dollar amount but I think it is somewhere in the vicinity of around $40 million, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-nine (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Sixty-nine million dollars of defaulted student loans in our Province.

In broadening the mandate and setting the rules for the Student Financial Assistance Act, has the minister considered those who are currently out with loans at banks, paying high interest rates - this was from a student - those who are currently borrowing through banks with high interest rates, are you considering broadening the mandate so that you would pay off student loans that are currently at banks, and combine them into the provincial portfolio?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Let the minister answer, please.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: With all due respect, and if a student has asked for that information, it may not be relevant to the collections that we are looking at here this evening. As far as I know, we will not be moving into that direction, to be honest and fair to the student who has asked the question. It is not the intent of this legislation, nor has it been discussed at this point. In saying that, we are always open, of course, to progress and making sure that policies meet the needs of the clientele that we serve.

What I do want to make clear is that - and I am not sure if I made this clear in our discussion earlier today or not - right now there are 9,700 loans in default, with over $69 million owing, and that is growing by about $1 million a month. What is important, and I do not know if I actually explained this today or not, is that the loans that are currently in default, that $69 million, will not be affected by this amendment. This amendment will affect loans that go in default after this legislation has been passed, so there would be nine months and then twenty-one. So, any of the student loans that are being collected now, that are in default, that are being collected through the system that we have in place now, will remain under that system. These 9,700 files will not be transferred to the federal government or to the federal process.

I am not sure if I made that clear, but I would just like to make that point.

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister - she states that the current 9,700 loans are in default at this moment - are you saying that those students will not have the opportunity to apply through the board now for write-off or deferred payments or new arrangements, they will be dealing exclusively with a collections agency through the federal government?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: No, the people who have loans in default now will have no changes in their process. The system that is set up, that they are under right now, will not change. The ones that go in default in the future will fall under the new process that would be set up because of the amendments in this legislation.

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

MS THISTLE: Just one final question at this time.

I guess, Minister, in making your statement, you are clarifying that students who are currently in default will not have the opportunity under the new bill that is coming in for flexibility; they will be dealing exactly with the rules that are now in place and they will not be able to take advantage of any of the new rules that you are bringing in. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Education.

MS BURKE: Yes, this legislation will be on a go-forward basis with loans that go in default following the changes in the legislation.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought that was my last question, but I would like to ask the minister: Why are you not including current loans that are right now in default? Why are you not looking after those students, and why are you just having this on a go-forward basis?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: We are going on a go-forward basis because this will be obviously a process that is new as we go through the federal collections agency. Right now we have a number of people who are involved in provincial collections of the student loan. We have a unit set up. They will continue in their jobs. They will continue in collections. They will continue doing their work, and there is a significant amount of work there that will keep them in their jobs for quite a number of years from this point on. We are not prepared to take those loans right now and put them into the new process. We will do it on a go-forward basis, but the collectors who are dealing with the students and their circumstances will remain status quo, so no students who are in default right now will have any changes to the process or to the people they deal with as a result of this legislative amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Chair, the minister just mentioned an astounding figure. She said there is $69 million out there now in debt on defaulted student loans. Is that correct, Minister? - and, you said that is growing by $1 million a month. Is that $1 million a month the interest on the $69 million in defaults, or is that additional students who are going into default on their student loans?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: The defaults are increasing by about $12 million a year, so that averages out to about a million dollars a month, and that also equals out to about 100 accounts a year that go into default. So, it has been growing. It is at 9,700 and we have certainly been making attempts at collections in trying to recover that money, but there are staggering amounts when you look at the numbers. Now, these numbers may go back many, many years but it is a growing number of defaults.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Minister, can you tell us what the total loan portfolio is for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: I do not have the number right here. I can check the Estimates and get that number. I think it is probably around $200 million.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So, what you are saying, Minister, is that more that 50 per cent, or more than 25 per cent, of the total student loans are going into default.

Can the minister give us any indication why she thinks this is happening in this new economy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: There are a number of reasons, and these loans do go back many, many years, so I cannot put a number on this as what happened in the last two years or five years, whatever. There are many reasons. There are many people who hit on financial hardship. They are many people who fall into circumstances that they did not plan for. There are people who may have not necessarily been disabled themselves but are caring for a disabled family member. There are people who may not have thought they were going to have dependants, whether it is children or elderly parents. There are other people who have probably not been able to find work. There are people who probably have an education in a field where they cannot find work or they are not interested or able to get a job.

There are many reasons why people would go into default. There is probably not one particular reason, but it is certainly related to their jobs.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The member just mentioned, in her talk there, about who was defaulting on their student loan and she mentioned a number of examples of people who are finding it difficult, and you gave an example of people looking after disabled people. I would assume that those hardship cases that you talked about were going to be given some type of relief from collections on these loans. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Well, there are certainly processes set up where they deal with the corporation and the payment of their loans and their payment schedules. What we will be able to do, on a go-forward basis, is be able to create some rules around financial hardship that we can deal with some specific cases. So, yes, we will be able to deal with some cases and be able to work with people.

There are many people who come on financial hardship, basically, through no fault of their own or through circumstances that they cannot control or they cannot deal with. We need to be able to work with all these people.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I ask the minister, you talk about these hardship cases and how they are looked at by the people who give out the student loan, or by this collection agency who is going to look for these student loans. If you are dealing with these hardship cases, I would assume that their loans would be written off and they would not be increasing by $1 million a month or they would not be included in the $69 million that currently exists. Am I correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Well, there are certain rules that apply that a person could deal with their loans, but there are other people who are possibly in default for reasons that are not necessarily related to financial hardship, for what other reasons they may not be paying their student loans, but they may be able to have the ability to do it, and that certainly is where the collection process becomes most effective.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: With regard to the collection process, it is my understanding, in the conversation that we have had here tonight, that the federal government now would be doing the collections. If so, obviously, they are going to have to hire more collectors. What is that going to cost the provincial government? What are we going to have to pay the federal government toward the collection of loans that are held by students from Newfoundland and Labrador?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: There are going to be two ways. At this point in time, the federal collection process will not kick in until at least nine months because it is on a go forward basis. We will continue with our own collections within the Province, as we have now through the collection process or the component of the Student Loan Corporation. That will continue on. As I said, the 9,700 cases that they process now will continue. As we move forward with the federal government, we will enter into an agreement and a negotiation as to how they will do the collection and how we will negotiate that. That will happen once we have the right to enter into that agreement. I cannot say exactly what the cost will be right now. It certainly will not be replacing what we are doing currently, but we will negotiate an agreement with the federal government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I ask the minister: Do you anticipate that the cost of collection in the future, when it is being done by the federal government, will be more or less than that which we are currently spending now for collections?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, it will not cost any more than what it costs us right now. It certainly would not be to our benefit to go into this process if we are not doing it in a more cost effective manner. The purpose behind this is to increase the collections to ensure that we are able to collect the money that we are able to collect, but when we compare the price of what it would cost us to do business now, it certainly would not be advantageous for us to spend more money if we were not getting more money. There would have to be a cost benefit analysis for the Province, that would certainly indicate savings and would certainly look at being able to collect more money. The process will not cost any more than what it would cost right now, or we would amend it again, I guess.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: The process is set up that when a person gets the Millennium Scholarship, if according to the Student Loan Corporation or the application of the student loan that they received, if the student loan has covered all their financial needs, it goes towards the provincial portion of the student loan. If there are unmet financial needs, that is when the students keep the money. Whether or not I like the process, no, I would like if somebody who got the $1,000 had it in their hand. These are processes that have been set up, and I know some students are certainly put out because they are probably at a point where they have financial needs. That has been the process that is set up. When there have unmet needs, they keep the money. When, according to that process, the needs have been met it goes towards the provincial portion of the loan.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am glad the minister answered in the way in which she did, because what she said, she would prefer to see the Millennium Scholarship that was presented to a student from Newfoundland and Labrador stay in the student's hand. You are the minister. Why don't you set that policy tomorrow, and we on this side of the House would definitely agree with you. Will you consider doing that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: There has been some complaints about the Millennium Scholarship, and certainly when the announcement was made of the scholarship, the Canadian Federation of Students have some issues with that whole program. We are looking at the program. What is good about it is somebody gets money, but some of the processes in that have created some problems and we will certainly be looking at that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you.

I thank the minister for her answer. I hope that you will be sitting down with the Minister of Finance, in the very near future, with that proposal. You said you are going to look at it, and I hope that, in the very near future, you will be saying that the Millennium Scholarships that are provided by the federal government will not be considered income, as they are today. That is the reason they are taken and paid towards the student loan and the student is not allowed to keep it. If he or she is allowed to keep it, then obviously their student loan for the next term or the next year will be reduced. I would just like to say that I would definitely like to see you put that forward.

As you have said here tonight, you do not agree with the current system even though it is under your department and under your control, and I would like for you to bring that to your Cabinet. We look forward to seeing that in the House of Assembly in the near future for ratification.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Just one final question, Minister.

I am wondering, given the significance of the issue and the extent of the problem around student loans, and this whole idea now about trying to put in place some flexibility and some acknowledgment of hardships, would you commit to a consultation process, at least consulting with those who are most directly impacted, and that, of course, would be with the student body itself?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: I would like to address the question put forward by the hon. member. I think consultation is going to be necessary, because it is going to be so difficult to try to get around all the issues that are out there. Sometimes, we think we have all the answers, we know all the information, but one area where I would like to have some of the suggestions addressed around this whole issue will be through the poverty reduction strategy because they will be doing consultations with various groups as they move ahead with that. I think this really hits at some of the heart of what we are trying to do with poverty reduction, so it is certainly an issue that I would like to have some consultation and I would like to have some feedback on. I will be bringing it to the ministerial committee on poverty reduction to see, through those processes and consultations, if we can get some feedback from the community from that end. That would also include the student bodies.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 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 To Amend The Student Financial Assistance 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 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 29 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): 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 and have directed me to report Bill 29 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 reported Bill 29 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall this bill be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

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

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

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code.

Debate had already commenced on this bill. Other speakers to the bill?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know I just indicated that we would do third reading later tonight, but maybe if we could revert to that, to move just that piece out of the way on Bill 29, we could revert to that, get that one out of the way, and then we will move right into this.

MR. SPEAKER: We will do third reading on Bill 29?

MR. E. BYRNE: Bill 29, yes.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Third reading on Bill 29.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act to Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 29 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 Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, 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 Student Financial Assistance Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29).

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

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

Again, I think we have already moved Order 3, second reading of An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, Bill 25.

On the Order Paper it says debate is adjourned. Just to refresh everyone's memory, the hon. Minister of Justice, Attorney General, introduced this bill and that is when the debate ended, so we will pick up debate with the hon. critics and those who wish to participate in second reading of this important piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Continuing debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity here in second reading to have a few words on the Human Rights Code.

As indicated by the Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice did, indeed, have his comments on second reading last Wednesday, I do believe, and we adjourned debate at that point on this particular bill because it was the end of the day and I believe he just wanted to get his piece done at that time.

In any case, I have had an opportunity to peruse the bill and give some thought to the comments that he himself made, and I guess the amendments to the Human Rights Code is a long time coming. In fact, it goes way back to the former Administration, as I understand. It goes back even ten, twelve years that the Human Rights Association has been approaching governments and requesting a number of amendments. I know, when I was in the department there, Justice, for a four- or five-year period, there were several meetings again with the Human Rights Association and it did not get done. It did not get done. I, number one, would give accolades to the minister for getting some of it done now. There is no question, it needed to be done. It had been requested numerous times. I have had meetings personally, even recently, with representatives of the Human Rights Association, and finally it is good to see the bill brought forward after many years of delay.

In fact, the association is, I guess, pleased, and I understand they, in fact, put out a press release recently saying that they are pleased with what government is introducing here in Bill 25 with respect to the Human Rights Code, and it expands the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination by including family status and source of income. That certainly is long overdue and needed, to have these prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Just so some people who do not understand the process - and, of course, we are talking not only amongst ourselves here, it is being televised, so there are people in the Province - my friends Joe and Martha, I always say, who quite often ask me, after we have been here: What is it you were talking about? What is the relevance to me? Well, I guess the relevance to everybody here, and I get asked, just about every time I go home: What were you talking about when you spoke about such and such an act? I like to take the time myself to explain actually what it is.

What we are doing here this evening, of course, isn this is the place were the laws are made, and we had an act, a law, called the Human Rights Code, and over time changes have taken place in our society which require that we need to update out acts. The same as you need to get a car repaired sometimes to keep it up and running, we need to keep out laws modernized to reflect the current day circumstances. That is the purpose of this code.

The Human Rights Association people, of course, figure that is all fine and dandy, to modernize it to a certain extent, but they also feel that the government has not gone far enough here. They have given credit where credit is due on a couple of issues here. For example, the family status issue: there were instances in our society and in this Province where people were discriminated against based upon their family status - for example, single parents sometimes. We have finally come to recognize, that should not be permitted any more. The fact of whether you are single or married ought not to be a factor in you living in this Province, and if someone cannot do something simply because of their status - for example, they are a single person - that is not allowed, that is not permissible any more, and that is what we are saying here, that we are not going to tolerate that any more. We do not care what your marriage status is, your family status. If you are a single parent, you are entitled to all the rights and privileges of anyone else. That is a good piece of amendment to this Human Rights Code.

We also have an amendment here which prohibits discrimination based upon the source of your income. Believe it or not, there were people sometimes who were discriminated against because they might have been in receipt of social assistance. Through no fault of their own they needed some help, and because they happened to be receiving their income from that particular source, i.e. public funding, social assistance, sometimes they were discriminated against.

We are finally now as a Province, with this law, going to say: Enough of that. We do not care if you are a millionaire, we do not care if you are a doctor or a lawyer or you work at Tim Hortons or whether you get your money from social assistance, we are going to treat everybody alike. That is the right way; that is the way it should be. It has taken us a while to get here, but that is what this law is going to do. Those are some of the good parts about this law. That is why the Human Rights Association has said that they support this Bill 25, because it does those things.

It also increases coverage to most areas of activity regulated by the Code to include persons over sixty-five years of age. Now the minister gave an explanation of that last Wednesday when he did second reading. I really have not figured out myself yet where we are going to head with this, and I think it is probably a case where time alone will decide what the full parameters of this change is going to be. I understand from the minister's comments that in future you will not be able to not hire a person because they are sixty-six, or when they become sixty-five you are no longer going to be able to say: You have to go home. Sure, we have people here in this House who might be approaching sixty-five. Do we tell them, all of a sudden, because they are sixty-five, you cannot work anymore no matter how much you want to work? That is the state we are in here, and the minister is changing that, so we cannot use that any more.

There are a lot of ramifications to simply saying, you shall not discriminate any more based upon your age when we get into this sixty-five issue. For example, I understand many of the unionized people and people who run pension plans have raised a question, not only here but throughout the country, and said: Whoa, just a minute, we have all of our pension plans premised on the fact that so many people contribute so many dollars over a certain period of time and then there is pot of money that we invest that allows those people, when they retire, to get a pension for themselves. The fear now is: What is going to happen if there are more people working beyond sixty-five? You might not have all that money going into the pot. There are a lot of financial issues there, and I do not think anybody has really figured out the full consequences yet of what might happen there.

There was an issue for example, as well, albeit you change the Human Rights Code: Will someone who chooses to work beyond sixty-five be covered when it comes to Workmen's Compensation? I believe the minister, indeed, was asked himself. He called into the Open Line show last Friday. I happened to hear it when I was in my district traveling. Someone called in and asked the minister that. He said: That is great, you are allowed to go to work now beyond sixty-five, but will I be covered on Workers' Compensation beyond sixty-five? The minister did not have an answer. That is one thing I would pose, as well. We haven't had an opportunity, and I am sure the minister or his alternate, when we get an opportunity, will get an answer to that question, because there are a lot of people out there who want to have the answer to that.

Another question about the retroactivity of this, or will it be retroactive. I give an example, again, of a very good friend of mine who actually worked for government in the tourist industry in the Visitors' Information Centre in the Port aux Basques area. She turned sixty-five last October, probably one of the most experienced, best tourist information officers this Province has seen, twenty-odd, twenty-seven years service. She did not want to go home. She is spry, mentally agile, with superior intelligence, and did not want to go home, but she had to go home because her birthday clicked over and she was sixty-five. I got a call from her last week. She is an avid listener of the House of Assembly proceedings. She called me and said: Kelvin, does this mean I can go back to work now? So, that is a question. What happens to these people who, within the last twelve months, went out under the old law but now we are bringing in this law and they want to go to work? Are they going to be able to reapply now for a government position?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the last ten years?

MR. PARSONS: That is right. These are questions that need to be asked. What is the impact upon these people? There was even talk back last fall, I say to the Minister of Finance, that government would be accepting a beyond sixty-five employment issue. It was not done, but it was talked about back then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is right. That particular lady raised the question even back then because the answer was not there even though she inquired. Now the answer is obviously going to be there once we have passed this bill, and she is saying: Whoa, I got caught in the middle here. I raised a question. I did not want to go but I was told to go. The person is well known to the Member for Port au Port there as well. He knows who I am talking about. Anyway, those are the kinds of practical problems people encounter when we change laws, too. It is great on a go-forward basis but how will it impact some of these people today?

Another thing this bill does which is beneficial is extends the limitation period. There used to be a limitation period. If something happened to you and you felt that you were discriminated against, you used to have six months to make your case. If you did not bring it forward to the authorities within six months, it was lost, you could not bring it up anymore and appeal the decision or make the grounds of discrimination known and want to have your case heard. Now six months is not a very long time when it comes to putting a case together and lodging your complaint and getting prepared. That has been recognized here now and the six month limitation period, anyone who is familiar with any kind of law in this Province, six months limitation is a pretty minimal limitation period. Almost everything else we have at least twelve months and in some cases, like the Fisheries Act and a lot of the criminal code stuff, we have well beyond a twelve-month limitation period. It is good to see that we have the limitation period extended as well.

As I indicated, the Human Rights Association of the Province feels that after ten years of discussions and promises, various ministers, myself included, it is good to see that we have Bill 25 here on the floor of the House.

To get into some of the changes now that are not here and that they would like to have had considered - and I do not know if it is too late for government to considerate it. That is why we have the process of amendments. We are here now in second reading, whereby you discuss the genesis of the bill, what the purpose of it is, what the intent of it is, what the spirit of it is, and when we get to the next stage in the proceedings, which is the Committee stage, of course that is the place as well where you can propose some additional amendments, and if the government sees fit they can accept those. Now I would think that government is not going to accept too many amendments we have put forward, in view of the fact that the Human Rights Association has already brought it to the attention of government. They have not found their way into Bill 25, so unless I make a pretty convincing argument, I think I have to be realistic and I am not to expectant that the minister is going to be open to many amendments. That does not take away from the fact that Human Rights Association feels that the bill does not go far enough and it does not take away the opportunity and the right to discuss what those other amendments should be.

The proposed amendments do not deal with it, but point that has been brought to my attention is that the government will remove from the definition section, which is in the Code, some obnoxious terms that are there, not being dealt with but we would think that the government would even now consider it; such terms as malformation and retardation. Those words are actually still contained in the definition section, and the association feels quite strongly that they should not be there. Maybe it is just an oversight on the part of government, that is still there and it hasn't been looked at. That is the whole purpose, again, of second reading, is to put forward what we feel, generally, is missing here before we get into Committee stage and get down to the nitty gritty. When you use those kinds of terms when you are referring to people with disabilities, I personally believe that is offensive. It should not be there, and I do not see anything wrong if we are at this stage and we have the opportunity to do that right here and right now whenever we get around to doing the amendments piece. The association made a number of recommendations on this issue, and they feel that - you know, we assume that it should be dealt with and it ought to be dealt with.

There are some other recommendations that the association made that are not addressed even though there has been consensus on some of these issues and some of these recommendations. It is not a case, as I understand it, where the government and the Human Rights Association did not see eye to eye. Apparently, on some of these recommendations, there was a consensus, and they still haven't found their way there.

These involve some of the following, and I will just go through some of these: to affirm the independence and the impartiality of the Human Rights Commission. Right now, for example, as I understand it, the Human Rights Commission reports to the Department of Justice. The submission is that the commission should report directly to the House of Assembly, similar to the Children and Youth Advocate, for example, who is an officer. The Child and Youth Advocate is an officer of this House, reports back to this House, and does not report to any particular government department. The independence of that body is well established and recognized here. The Citizens' Representative is not subject to the whim of any government department, not a Big Brother type of mentality but has the independence of reporting back to this House. The Human Rights Association feels that the Human Rights Commission should be similar, similar independence should be here and have them report back to the House of Assembly.

The reference to the universal declaration of Human Rights that was in the preamble of the original, as it was called at that time, Newfoundland Human Rights Code, not Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Code, should be reinstated and returned to the legislation as a statement of this Province's commitment to the principles contained in that document. It was there originally. Some people might say it was window dressing. The Human Rights Association does not feel that way, and it was removed. That was no reason. I am not quite sure, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, when it came out but it did come out, and the Association feels quite strongly that it should be put back in because it is a universal declaration of human rights. If we are dealing with a Human Rights Code for this Province, what is wrong with having the universal declaration as part of our Human Rights Code.

The Code also, they suggest, should include a preamble, affirming the commitment of this Legislature and of the Province to the eradication of discrimination. No such statements in the preamble of our Human Rights Code and the promotion of the principles of equality. Now, I have not seen anything that I have said so far that seems very controversial. This seems to me to be very good principles that are being brought forward here. Of course, by having these types of statements in our preambles it shows the spirit and the intent of our legislation. The eradication of discrimination, that seems like a pretty good ideal to be promoting, and promotion of the principles of equality. Those responsible for the interpretation of the provisions of the Code may do so in light of the commitment that is in the preamble, if you put it in there. It gives guidance again, and we should have as much guidance as we can.

The Human Rights Association of this Province feels that the Code should address the issue of systemic discrimination. The legislation needs to be amended to focus on eliminating systemic discrimination in addition to its present priority of individual complaints. Right now the focus of our Code is upon individual complaints, as opposed to systemic types of discrimination and their resolution.

In addition, there is a need for additional amendments to address specific issues. Again, I would submit, and they submit, the association - they include the following: To include citizenship as a prohibited ground of discrimination, except in cases where Canadian citizenship is a requirement imposed by law. Now, that seems pretty straightforward too. As I understand and read that, you should not be able to discriminate against anybody based upon their citizenship - that seems pretty straightforward - except, of course, in cases where Canadian citizenship is a requirement imposed by any particular law.

To prohibit discrimination on the basis of criminal conviction, where the conviction is unrelated to the intended employment. Now, that is one that probably everybody here has had some involvement with. I will give you an example of my own personal experience, not a criminal conviction but experience in the legal field, of someone who didn't get a job because they had a criminal conviction. The criminal conviction bore no relationship to the job for which they were applying.

I can see, if you were applying to be bank manager and you were convicted of armed robbery, where you might have a problem. There is a pretty good connection, that we are probably not going to put you in charge of the strongbox if you are used to running off with the strongbox. I can't see why - I had a case, for example, of a person who applied to be a mechanic with Marine Atlantic Inc., a fully qualified journeyman mechanic with twenty-odd years of experience working in private industry. All of a sudden, a job opportunity comes up in this federally funded agency, Marine Atlantic, better working conditions, better pay, and this particular individual, notwithstanding all of his credentials and his excellent work record - he had an impaired driving conviction seventeen years before that. Now, he could have gone through the trouble of getting a pardon, cleaned his record, gone through all of that shemozzle, but seriously, if a person has a conviction for impaired driving when they are, say, twenty-one, and if they paid their debt to society and have gone on to become worthy, contributing citizens to our society, has a family, advanced themselves, and all of the sudden they are thirty-seven or thirty-eight years old and somebody in a federal government agency says: Sorry, buddy, you can't get the job because you had a conviction when you were twenty-one years old from impaired driving.

Now, that is not to make light of the seriousness of impaired driving offences, because it is very serious, but the Human Rights Association, quite rightly, I think, are proposing that you should not be able to discriminate against somebody in hiring them for a job to which that previous conviction has no relationship.

I do not think there is any relationship between your ability to be a top flight mechanic for Marine Atlantic and the fact that you got convicted twenty-odd years ago. I do not believe it. Now, if you have had several convictions over the years for impaired driving, the employer might say: Well, look, I am sorry, you have to drive as part of your employment. You have a record of having alcohol as part of your life, and we are not going to have you. But that was not the circumstance there. So, if there is no connection between the criminal conviction - it is unrelated to the intended employment - that should be prohibited as discriminatory.

Also, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pardonable offences, another recommendation. To prohibit discrimination in obtaining the services of volunteers in a similar manner as it applies to employment, housing, provision of services, and discriminatory publications. To prohibit discrimination in the making of any contract, including the sale of land. They also point out the blanket exemption for social organizations that allows those that provide accommodation, services, goods or facilities to impose discriminatory requirements for membership is currently too broad. If you wish, under those circumstances, to impose discriminatory requirements, there should be an obligation for you, before you impose them, to apply to the Human Rights Commission for an exemption as a special program. You just cannot go off and do it. If you are going to do something that does impose discriminatory requirements for membership, you should get an exemption as a special program from the Human Rights Commission before you are allowed to do so.

In conclusion, in second reading here, that is the gist of the Human Rights Association's concerns. They are pleased that the government has started to make a step in the right direction. They have brought forward some very credible amendments that they feel ought to be here. I would point out that the ones that I have gone through, these are not the controversial ones. These are not ones that government said, we cannot agree to, and at a reason, as I understand it. The ones that I just brought forward, as I understand it, are ones that there was a consensus between government and the association that they are okay, so I guess the question that the association is raising is: Why aren't they here, and why aren't we dealing with them? Particularly the derogatory words that I made mention of that are in the definition section. I see no reason why they should not be removed from consideration.

I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to when we get to the Committee stage of having further comment with regard to these amendments to the Human Rights Code.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words about the amendments to the Human Rights Code, Bill 25, now before the House.

First of all, obviously, any improvement in the Human Rights Code is positive, in particular adding additional prohibited grounds of discrimination in certain areas. In this case the emphasis has been, in this round, of changes to the Human Rights Code on the addition of family status, age, and source of income, in certain aspects of the Human Rights Code. I will get into some little detail on that in a few minutes, because I think we have to understand that the Human Rights Code is not like the Charter of Rights. It does not provide blanket coverage for all forms of discrimination for all types of human activity. In fact, it is divided up into different types of activity, and the prohibited grounds are different of each one.

For example, we have a section of the Human Rights Code that deals with the provision of public services, and certain forms of discrimination are prohibited with respect to public services. Then we have another section dealing with the rights to accommodation, commercial or dwelling house accommodation, and the prohibited grounds are listed out there separately. Harassment of occupants is dealt with separately. Discrimination in employment is dealt with differently. Then we have harassment in public. Harassment in an establishment is prohibited, again with different prohibited grounds, and discriminatory publication, for example, in a different section, so each of these separate sections is dealt with differently, with different rules.

It is a bit of a lawyers' paradise, I have to say, and a lawyers' paradise is, in fact, in many respects rather a labyrinth or a tangle for ordinary people in trying to deal with and understand what their rights are. I think that is one general problem with the Human Rights Code.

I also have to say this, Mr. Speaker: I was surprised to hear the Opposition House Leader say that while there might be a few amendments, he doesn't see much point in presenting any because the government obviously is not going to accept them, if they didn't listen to what the Human Rights Association said. That leads me to consider, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here. Why are we here debating legislation if members opposite are not prepared to consider amendments?

MR. E. BYRNE: We are prepared to make them.

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader says he is prepared to make them. I guess we have to wonder whether the government is prepared to listen to them and be persuaded to accept them. This seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be one of those pieces of legislation that would benefit from the kind of consideration that, at one time, was given to legislation by use of our standing committees. We have a number of standing committees of this House that at one time considered legislation. There was a period in the mid-1990s when legislation was brought to the House, in some cases given first reading, and in some cases draft legislation presented to a committee. That committee - and the Speaker will remember some of these committee hearings as he and I were on some of them - would consider legislation and would ask officials of the department to come in and explain why they choose this particular amendment or that particular amendment. In fact, in committee many amendments were - well not many, but a number of amendments were made that, in fact, improved the legislation or took out problems that were there.

This seems to me, particularly where there has been a ten-year period as pointed out by the Opposition House Leader - there has been a ten-year period where there have been a number of suggestions coming forth from the Human Rights Association which also sent me a copy of their press release. They say that in 1996 they had proposed over sixty changes to the provincial Human Rights Code. Now, I am not going to get into politics, Mr. Speaker. I leave that to members opposite to say: Well, they were in office in 1996, why didn't they make them? I leave the Member for Trinity North to say - oh, I am not sure where he was then. He may not have even been here, so I won't go after him. I don't want to get into politics here, Mr. Chair. Yes, there was a different government in 1996, yes, there were sixty-six amendments or sixty-some recommendations made, but it seems to me we are here, ten years later, in 2006, with a different government and with an opportunity to do the right thing, I say, and have a study of these proposed amendments and see whether, in fact, there are not others that ought to be made to ensure that we have a proper Human Rights Code, because it is complex.

The minister is not here unfortunately - I am not supposed to say that, but he is not here. He is on other government business, very important business dealing with the Government of Canada. He is not here and someone else is speaking for him, I am sure.

MR. E. BYRNE: He is out there doing the work of Her Majesty.

MR. HARRIS: He is on Her Majesty's service. I have no quarrel with that. I do not think he is playing golf or anything. I understand the minister has meetings with his federal counterpart and doing very important work.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is also very important work, when we see, for example, no real explanation why these three, the categories that we are dealing with for the most part here, family status, age and source of income, why we do not apply them to everything that is in the Human Rights Code, why not just some of the things. Why, for example, are we defining these things so narrowly? Why is source of income simply defined as in receipt of Income Support? You cannot discriminate against someone because they are in receipt of Income Support, but you can discriminate against them if they are receiving Unemployment Insurance.

If source of income is an important point, if source of income is chosen as a means or a prohibited ground, shall we say, why aren't all sources - can you discriminate against someone because they are in receipt of a pension and say, we do not take people on Workers' Compensation in this accommodation? I will not rent to you because you have Workers' Compensation. I will not rent to you because you have your money coming from a foreign country. I will not rent to you because you are on UI. I can do all of that, but I cannot discriminate against you because you are in receipt of Income Support.

Source of income does not mean source of income. Source of income actually means if you are in receipt of Income Support. Why is that? What explanation is there for that? Who came up with that idea? Who suggested that we should have such a narrow prohibited ground as, in receipt of Income Support from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? What if you are in receipt of Income Support from some other government, the Government of Canada? What if you are on a disability pension? Can I discriminate against somebody who is on a CPP disability pension, but not against someone who is on Income Support? What is the point here?

These are questions that may have an answer. I doubt it. I doubt they have a very good answer, frankly, but the floor of the House of Assembly is not the place to deal with the kind of detail that I am talking about here, and I am speaking at second reading of course, when this has not been given the kind of full consideration that I suspect a committee of this House would give it. Why, for example, when we have in such sections as clause 7 of this bill, and you have to have a consolidation of the Act to even understand what is going on here, why is it that sections 12, 14 and 18 of the Act are amended by adding after marital status family status and age to these particular sections? They deal with - and I will explain it here - they deal with harassment in an establishment prohibited. It says a person in an establishment shall not harass another person in the establishment because of their race, religion, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, physical disability, mental disability, political opinion, colour or ethnic, national or social origin of that person. To that is being added family status and age. You can't harass somebody in a public setting by saying they are an old fogey, I guess. You cannot discriminate against somebody, you cannot harass them on account of their age, on account of their family status, that you are a single mother or something, but you can apparently harass them on the basis that they are in receipt of Income Support. Why is that? Why should you be able to harass somebody on the basis of their source of income but not on the basis of their sexual orientation or various other things, if indeed you are raising source of income to the status of prohibited ground?

We have another: Section 14, discriminatory publication. A person shall not publish or display or permit to be published or displayed in a newspaper, radio, televison broadcasting or by other medium, a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating discrimination or intent of discrimination against a person by reason of all these prohibited grounds again, and I will go through them. You know the ones, race, religion, religious creed, political opinion, colour, ethnic, national or social origins, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. To that is being added family status and age, but not source of income. So you can discriminate against welfare recipients, you can call them that if you want, you can discriminate against having a discriminatory publication, going after people on social assistance, Income Support. You are allowed to that, that is not contrary to the Human Rights Code. But you cannot say anything bad about people because of their political beliefs. Although I am surprised to see that there, because there are all sorts of comments in newspapers about Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats or whatever. Nevertheless, it is here as prohibited grounds. Now nothing, of course, interferes with free expression of opinion upon a subject by speech or writing, so free speech, I guess, takes care of that kind of thing.

What is the point here? I just say this in a general way, because I do not know - we are here on a Tuesday night, the House is going to be open next week, maybe we can come up with a series of amendments that might receive some acceptance on the other side. Really, it is something not only with respect to some of the provisions that are in this legislation, but also some of the provisions that have been suggested as the previous speakers pointed out, that have been suggested by the Human Rights Association, issues such as discrimination based on citizenship. I think that is an important one.

Should you say that you are not going to rent to somebody because they are a Russian citizen? I am sorry, we do not rent to foreigners here. Of course, that is national origin, so that would be covered I suppose. If you do not have a citizenship, you could say to somebody, national origin does not count, but if you are not a citizen I will not rent you an apartment. Why is that? Why should you be allowed to do that? I understand that progress may be slow on these things, that you are adding grounds as time goes on, but why would whoever is advising the Minister of Justice on the Human Rights Code not include citizenship at this time, and yet include family status and age?

Family status does not mean family status, of course. Family status does not mean family status at all. Family status means the relationship of parent and child. That is all it means. It does not mean anything to do with whether you are married or whether you are not, or whether you are part of a large family or a small family, whether you are an illegitimate or legitimate child. It does not mean family status as the public would know it. It is defined very narrowly in the Act as to mean a parent and a child.

I do not disagree with the inclusion of family status. Do not get me wrong. What this says is that you cannot say to a person: I will not rent you an apartment because you are a single parent with a child. Not only that, it goes farther than that. You cannot have an apartment building that says: No children, adults only. You see buildings, apartments, that try to maintain adults only apartments. After this is passed, it is not allowed any more, because if you cannot discriminate on the basis of family status, then you cannot prevent an individual and a child, or two individuals and a child, to rent an apartment.

There is a provision there, an exemption for apartments on age. You cannot discriminate on the basis of age with one exception, you can have a seniors' apartment, because there is a special exemption that says: In respect to a rental accommodation, you are allowed to discriminate against someone who is fifty-four and say, you can only rent an apartment here if you are fifty-five or over. That would suit me fine, Mr. Speaker, I would not have a problem, I could get in. If I was fifty-four or fifty-three I could not. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of detail in these amendments. I do not have a problem with the bulk of them, because they are in fact improving human rights for people generally, and in particular for single parents. I think that is important, for single parents or for families with children. This Act will now make it contrary to the Human Rights Code to say, no children, no pets. Sometime you see that, adults only for this apartment building. That is no longer going to be allowed.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I generally support the amendments that are before the House. I think this is the kind of legislation that could really benefit from a committee's consideration. Not everything needs a committee to look at it, but there is a lot of detail in this act, there are a lot of different levels of services, and I would invite anybody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I would invite anybody who thinks that the Human Rights Code is a straight forward list of reasons why you cannot discriminate against people to have a look at the Code, because they will find that you sure can discriminate against people. There are only certain times and certain places under certain types of activities can you have your discrimination prohibited by the code, because they are divided up into the right of access to public services, the right to occupy commercial and dwelling units, harassment of occupants of public places, discriminations in employment, and discrimination with respect to attachment of wages. Then we have other activities based on discriminatory publications and harassment in public. These are things that have attracted different levels of or different types of prohibited grounds, and the reasons that are spelled out are very detailed. You have to come within one of those particular frameworks in order to be able to mount a complaint successfully under the Human Rights Code.

I do want to say something about the issue of the limitation period. My colleague, the previous speaker, the Opposition House Leader, talked about the improvement from six to twelve months. I have spoken on this a number of times in the past, Mr. Speaker. The limitation period of six months is way too short. I have spoken on this in the past. I have suggested that it should be consistent with other limitation periods under the Limitations Act, which is two years. You have two years to sue somebody. The civil law gives some person two years to sue someone else over an assault, or sue government or sue somebody over a car accident. Two years is the common limitation period. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that two years should be the provision here. We have twelve months.

Obviously it is an improvement, because I know there was one particular individual who was an employee of government - and some hon. members may be familiar with him - who was pursuing a case against the government for harassment in his employment which caused him to leave his employment. He was campaigning quite actively for a number of years with members of this House to seek a change, because he got caught under the limitation period. I think the government agreed to allow the thing to go forward in any event and eventually the individual received a settlement after a Human Rights tribunal made a determination.

Mr. Speaker, his complaint was that the six-month limitation period was way too short. It took him that long or more to figure out where he should go to try and get a resolution to his problem, because he had his union involved or not involved as the case may be, and it wasn't until a long time had passed when he realized he was not going to get redress the way he had chosen and had to go the routes of the Human Rights Code. Two years is not too much. I do not know again the explanation as to why we are here looking at a twelve-month limitation period for bringing an action or bringing an application to the Human Rights Code to get redress. Two years again seems to me to be consistent with other limitation periods for civil type actions. I am leaving out prosecutions, this is not a prosecution situation, it is a complaint provision, and the limitation period of two years seems to me to be much more relevant.

Again, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the minister is not here, it hardly seems appropriate for us to be over here. We haven't gotten to third reading yet, or committee stage, to be proposing amendments when there is no one here to actually deal with them. I wonder if the government would give consideration to seeing this legislation go before a statutory committee for further consideration. I do not know if there is anything in this that is extremely urgent. Obviously, if there is discrimination against single parents or discrimination against people with children, then that is something that should be looked at as soon as possible. I would not want to see it delayed unduly, but certainly some of this detail might deserve consideration, particularly the one with respect to age sixty-five. As was indicated by the previous speaker, there are issues that relate to pensions, that relate to concerns by union groups, that people can be expected to work beyond sixty-five, even though they might want to have a retirement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time is expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: By leave for a moment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendments at second reading and changes to the Human Rights Code that are going to bring about improvements, but I would hope that this bill could be further studied by a committee of the House to make it, in fact, even more acceptable to hon. members.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am told that the series of amendments that we are proposing to the Human Rights Code here tonight are the most substantive reforms of the Human Rights Code that have been presented since it came into existence in October, 1988.

I think that tells us something, Mr. Speaker. That series of amendments does not deal with every possibility of amending the Human Rights Code. There is no question about that. We, as a government, fully admit that, but what we are presenting here this evening is a series of amendments - there has been a significant consensus reached between the Human Rights Commission and the Human Right Association. Government has worked on those amendments, as the Opposition House Leader says, going back for a number of years. There has been enough consensus reached now on a number of the issues that are included here that we are all comfortable in proceeding with them.

I want to respond to a couple of articles raised by my friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. On the issue of source of income, the member says: Well, where did that come from? Well, it came out of a consensus reached with the Human Rights Commission, that the definition of source of income refer - as it does, I understand, right across the country - to people who are in receipt of income support or social assistance. Some of those definitions are very narrow, and they are very narrow for a reason in every jurisdiction right across Canada, and this particular definition was a definition that was arrived at through consensus by the Commission and those people working on the document.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says: Where did it come from, that we would amend the limitation period from six months to one year? The Commission recommended it. That is what the Commission recommended to government, that we consider to be a reasonable limitation period.

Now, I am not unlike the hon. gentleman. Two years, as we have in our regular statute of limitations, does not seem to be an onerous limitation period. It is one that we commonly use in preparing suits and cases and insurance matters and so on, but in this particular case the Commission was the source of the recommendation that said we should increase this limitation period from one to two years.

The Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, made a number of references to some of the things that are not in the Code. Now, I want to thank both hon. members for the support for what we are proposing in this legislation. It has a way to go, but I think it is proof that these kinds of documents, these kinds of acts, this kind of legislation, is kind of a living, breathing document. It grows and it evolves and it expands over time and you hopefully end up with a better act after each one of those provisions.

What happened to the definitions? the hon. member asked. Well, there wasn't a sufficient consensus reached on some of those definitions. For example, the one that the hon. member referred to noxious terms, or whatever the term was that he used. There was an attempt made to redraft that provision, as I understand it, to real and perceived mental or physical illnesses, and there was not any significant consensus reached as to whether or not that would be a more appropriate definition than what was already in the act. My understanding is that, at the end of the day, it was left for another piece of work, and perhaps it will be possible to come up with a more acceptable definition some time down the road.

The hon. member referred to, as well, the lack of a preamble and the inclusion of the universal Declaration of Human Rights in a preamble. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that in the 1990s there was a deliberate decision taken by the governments of the day to not necessarily - in fact, the thinking was, as I understand it, not to include preambles in legislation. It was done in some cases, but the general thinking, as I have been told, is that the act stood for itself. The act said what it had to say. The act said what the government and the House of Assembly meant it to say, and that a preamble to the piece of legislation was not necessary and was taken out, as a matter of fact, when some amendments were done in the 1990s.

Let me see. There was a whole bunch of issues raised by the hon. gentleman. There are proposals that there are significant consensus on, that are still being worked on, and I am sure there will be another sweep and another series of amendments to this legislation again, as time goes on.

I want to deal briefly, as well, with the workers' compensation issue. Rightly or wrongly, the whole situation across the country today is that workers' compensation in jurisdictions where they have amended their Human Rights Code has not been extended to those people beyond sixty-five years of age. There are fiscal reasons for it. That decision has actually been challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has successfully withstood that challenge, so the courts have given their opinion on it. I think there is a fear or there is a concern that if you are going to extend rights to older workers, to workers' compensation, then the schemes, as they were built up, you know, during the past number of years, could conceivably run into some very serious fiscal financial arrangements, but that is the normal situation in every jurisdiction in Canada that has moved, as we are moving here, to remove the discrimination based on age. Is it right? I do not know. All I am telling my colleagues here is that is the normal situation in the country as we speak and that, in fact, there was a challenge under the Canadian Charter and the provision itself did, in fact, survive the Charter.

There were a lot of good comments made from the friends on the other side of the House. There has been significant consultation with the Humans Rights Commission and with the Human Rights Association on the amendments that we are proposing here tonight and -

MR. E. BYRNE: Consensus has been arrived at.

MR. RIDEOUT: Consensus has been arrived at, based on what we have included in the bill. There is some consensus on other areas, but they are not included because there is another piece of work left to be done on them and there will be, perhaps, further amendments coming.

As to sending the bill out to a legislative committee, I guess the minister, the department, the government, the Commission, and the Association, we have decided that this bill is important enough, the amendments are important enough, that we should deal with them in this current session of the Legislature and move on with them. That is not to say they are perfect - they are not - but they are a significant improvement to what is in the act at the present time.

I certainly would not be in a position, on behalf of my colleague, and he has not talked to me about it, about saying that we want to take this out of the House right now. In fact, the advice from all of those involved in the Commission, the Association and the department is that we have reached a significant consensus on those amendments that we are proposing. They are good amendments, they are good legislation, and we should proceed with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, 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 Human Rights Code. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 25 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 Human Rights Code," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. ( Bill 25)

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 a bill, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, and that I do now leave the Chair.

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.

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code." (Bill 25)

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I listened very carefully to the comments of the Deputy Premier in defending the presentation of the bill as is, and I agree with him that the amendments that are being proposed now are important to go forward on, and I am encouraged to hear that there are further amendments under consideration.

Might I suggest, Madam Chair, that these further amendments be presented to a Committee of this House under the Standing Orders which allow that to happen so that there can be - if there is a consensus among certain individuals, perhaps that consensus ought to be broadened to include Members of this House of Assembly who are going to be asked to pass on further amendments to the House.

I think the Human Rights Commission certainly has an important role to play in advancing the cause of human rights and also in the evolving nature of the Human Rights Code itself, so I do not have difficultly with them proposing amendments that they are satisfied with at this time.

It may well be, Madam Chair, that members of this House are prepared to go further than the Human Rights Commission, or that when members opposite and members on this side of the House, when they get to consider these issues, might have an idea of expanding human rights beyond what maybe other provinces have done, whether it is with respect to source of income being defined in a particular way across the country. Someone obviously has to take the lead from time to time. We are not going to be the followers all the time and say: Well, other provinces have done it so now we are going to get around to doing it.

Obviously, Madam Chair, as human rights evolve, and the nature of Human Rights Codes evolve, each province has an opportunity to play a leadership role in the advancement of the cause of human rights and I would hope that our Province would want to be involved in that process as well.

I would urge this government to consider making more use of legislative committees when it comes to bringing in particular types of legislation. Specifically, this type of legislation is one that would be particularly suitable to a legislative committee. We have had others. The Adoptions Act, for example, which a lot of people had a lot of interest in, which affected a lot of people, had a lot of concern by a number of members on both sides of the House, was discussed in a legislative committee and amendments were proposed and changes made and a consensus reached of members of this House; because, after all, it is the members of this House that are elected, and each of them has an expertise to bring to the floor.

We understand there are experts. There are people in the Human Rights Commission, there are people in the Ministry of Justice who might be legally trained in all of that, but human rights are everybody's rights. They are not just the purvey of lawyers or people who are specifically involved in that.

I have always contended, Madam Chair, that our democracy is made up of ordinary people who happen to be elected to the House, each of whom has a variety of experience and individual common sense and insight to bring to the process of legislation. It is in that context, Madam Chair, that I suggested this is the kind of legislation that should, perhaps, receive that kind of broader consideration and consensus.

Having said that, Madam Chair, I am not going to propose any amendments here at Committee stage. The government has clearly decided what it wants to do here and how far it is prepared to go. I think a two-year limitation period would make a lot more sense, but in order to get to that point I think there would have to be a broader consensus of members of the House of Assembly. If the Human Rights Commission sees some advantage in going from six to twelve, well then that is a good first step, but maybe there is an opportunity to go the full step and see the two-year limitation period as being a sensible one.

I would urge the minister, in the interest of getting this legislation through this House now and meeting the objectives that are so far advanced, to pass this legislation now. But I would ask the minister, and the Minister of Justice through him, to give serious consideration to putting this legislation before a legislative committee - we have three existing legislative standing committees of this House for consideration of further amendments - and present those amendments to them, and perhaps even ask what other amendments might be desirable by members of the Legislature, elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to serve them in this particular way.

Having said that, Madam Chair, I will take my place and see what other speakers have to say.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a brief comment here in Committee stage on the Human Rights Code.

I appreciate the comments of the Deputy Premier. I thought they were quite clear in explaining things. I am glad, in fact, he took the opportunity to clarify the issue of the over sixty-five in Workers' Comp rather than the Minister of Finance. I appreciate his clear, precise explanation of that particular issue that concerned me.

I can also appreciate where the minister is coming from in saying that it is fine for someone to stand up and say: You haven't done this, you haven't done that, you haven't done something else. That is easy. That is to be the role of the critic sometimes, to say, you didn't go far enough and you haven't considered those things. I appreciate your comments by pointing that out, that everybody just wasn't ready to do everything right. I guess, if you look at it logically, if one were to wait until all the pieces of the puzzle lined up you might never get anything done, because as fast as you have the ten items that you think you have resolved there is a number eleven that comes along. I have no problem with that logic, that you have done what you can at this point in time. I guess, where we are coming from - and I am just as tardy as anyone else in that regard, as being a member of the former government - if that the Human Rights Association, I do believe, have a legitimate concern in saying that these unresolved issues don't seem to be moving along very fast, in the sense that they pointed out the fifty-odd or sixty-odd recommendations back in 1996. We are ten years out and we do get them in piecemeal.

I guess, as the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says, trying to suggest an amendment here in the course of this particular debate in Bill 25 would hardly be appropriate if the parties themselves haven't worked out what they believe to be the ideal solution. In fact, I looked at the issue of the use of some of the definition sections, and I said that you should take out some of the, I use the term obnoxious, terminology that was in there, such as malformation and retardation when referring to persons with disabilities, and there is no doubt it should be. Quite rightly, he asked the question: Well, what would you replace it with? When I looked back to some information that I had from the Human Rights Association, again it is quite clear that it hasn't been definitively resolved, because the issue as pointed out there, is that maybe we should consult the Canadian Mental Health Association and other community groups active in the field of mental health, to formulate an appropriate definition of mental disability.

I fully concur that it is not the right time and the right place to suggest, just for the sake of suggesting it, that we should take it out if we haven't gone down the road of deciding what it should be replaced with. I would urge government that rather than leaving the Human Rights Association strung out for another ten years, there should be some process of consultation whereby we move these issues along. If it means an annual bill that has to come before this House to make these amendments as they are done - even if there are only one or two a year that get done - at least eventually we would have caught up to where we need to be, rather than never getting anything done.

I am fully supportive of what is here. There should be a process to get the balance of the outstanding recommendations dealt with so that there is some consensus. We look forward to seeing these come forward on an annual basis, whether it is one or whether it is fifty that happen to be resolved.

Thank you, and we will be supporting Bill 25.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to make a couple of comments before we finish the Committee stage of this bill. For those of you in the House who may know, over the course of the last couple of months the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been conducting some consultations on healthy aging, and I have been chairing that process, Madam Chair. One of the things that we have been doing as we have been going through that process is having a discussion centered around a series of themes and one of those themes is the recognition of an older person. One of the things we recognized as we had the discussion, and we came to recognize it fairly quickly, was that agism was alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador. In one of the examples that was being pointed out to us in the process is clearly there is a lack of understanding about aging. There are many myths and stereotypes about a senior population that need to be dealt with, and as a society, I think collectively, we have a responsibility to better understand the issues around aging.

One of the things that was pointed to periodically throughout the seventeen communities that we have been in is our own Human Rights Code and how it was sadly lacking because we, ourselves, in what should be the cornerstone of legislation in this Province and how we view each other within society, it was pointed out several times that within our own Human Rights Code the area of age was left out. I just wanted to be able to acknowledge tonight, particularly for those people who came out in these seventeen community consultations, and I guess particularly the Newfoundland and Labrador association for seniors and fifty-plus retirees, an organization that represents a large network of senior organizations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. They have made representation to government in the last couple of years to ensure that these changes were made.

I stand here this evening to commend the minister, commend government, for bringing forward this legislative change. Particularly, as we look at clause 3.(1), we have now added: "the Bill would amend subsection 6.(1) of the Act by adding "family status" and "age" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination." Also, we see it in section 8, as prohibited grounds for harassment.

These are the kinds of things, Madam Chair, that we have heard throughout our consultations that speaks systemically to some of the issues that we have tried to deal with as a society and come to grips with agism in this Province. I think the discussion in this House and the final recognition by this government that age should not be a reason for discrimination. We need to have a better understanding of an aging society. We need to recognize and appreciate the people in this Province who have not only made a tremendous contribution to building this Province to what it is today, but those people in society who are advancing in years who still have a tremendous amount of potential and will still continue to make a major contribution to society. We ought not to - and it is important that the legislation we pass in this House recognizes that and that we not, as a society, discriminate against individuals because of their age.

Madam Chair, I just want to commend, again, the minister for bringing this bill forward, and on behalf of the seniors in this Province, thank government for taking this step and making this change in what is a fundamental cornerstone of legislation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 10.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 10 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 10 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title of the bill carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, 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): 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 Bill 25 passed 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 her to report Bill 25 passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

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: Now, by leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that we now move to third reading of Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 25 be 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 Human Rights Code. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, 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 Human Rights Code," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

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

I move to Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill 30, amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.

The Highway Traffic Act establishes regulatory and administrative control over vehicles and highway safety, including: driver licensing, vehicle registration, commercial carrier regulations, vehicle safety, and safe operations of all types of vehicles on the public roads in the Province.

The act is a large piece of legislation which regularly requires amendments in order to reflect actual policy intent or current administrative practice, or to improve the accountability and safety practices on the Province's highways. These proposed amendments today are considered relatively routine, and are designed to correct inadvertent oversights or reflect policy intent.

There are a couple of items which I would like to highlight because I see them as being very positive, especially for the rural areas of our Province. The first is the amendment which will change the definition of taxi in the act. Right now, it inadvertently captures those private vehicles which are contracted by school boards to transport children who cannot travel by school bus for various physical or behavioural reasons. This means that these vehicles are charged much higher rates of insurance, as if they were regular taxis. This is cost prohibitive for the school boards and, as well, by making this change, it will increase the availability of special needs transportation in rural areas where taxis are not generally available. No negative competitive impact on the taxi industry is anticipated as a result of this amendment. These contracts are publicly tendered, and most of the contracts with private individuals are in areas outside the Northeast Avalon region. In the Avalon region, taxis are normally the successful bidders and are expected to continue in this role.

Another positive change for rural areas is to allow the nurse practitioners to report the medical conditions of drivers and to certify certain medical documents. Currently, only doctors can do this. The change will improve monitoring of and access to a service for residents of our more rural or remote parts of the Province where nurse practitioners but not physicians are located.

The rest of the amendments are mainly routine but will have a positive impact on the administration and the enforcement of highway safety.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will endeavour to be as brief as the minister was with her explanation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Nevertheless, I do have some comments that I would like to make.

I have had a chance to review the bill, and made some comparisons, and I agree, Minister, that some of the changes there are necessary and timely, I guess. I think, from my point of view, we look at it and some of the things that are in there, you know, if we start off with the definition of a taxi as being a paid vehicle to transport passengers, I am assuming that you are making it inclusive to carry children on school bus runs in smaller communities, which is unfortunate, because we are reaching a point now in rural Newfoundland that some of these communities are getting smaller and a larger volume of children are being transported.

I was up today and I presented a petition earlier today regarding a school closure in Harbour Grace scheduled for 2010. There has been a lot of school busing taking place in my district over the years and it is somewhat confusing, because I think in 1960 I was bused from Carbonear to Harbour Grace, and some time past that. I won't say that was my last year - it was my first year - as a young fellow going to school. In the same token, we used to get to wave to the girls on the way from Harbour Grace to Carbonear. That was our first encounter, I guess, with trying to catch a girl, but the bus was always going in the wrong direction. We managed to cure that on Friday nights when we used to have the dances at the various youth clubs out there in the area, so we managed to get around that particular problem.

Mr. Speaker, busing in this Province is on an increase, there is no question about that, in particular -

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevancy.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, very relevant. I suspect I will probably be challenged on relevancy a lot more before I sit down.

- in particular in rural communities, on some of our rural roads.

Another petition that I presented this afternoon from my constituents, and constituents on the North Shore, particularly students being bused from Western Bay to Carbonear, they were talking about a particular stretch of road on Route 70 that is in bad need of repair. It is important that the buses are able to stand up to the rough usage they are receiving on many of our roads. My colleague from Bellevue mentioned a particular piece of road in his district that was on a dangerous slope, that residents were complaining about.

Those sorts of things bring to mind about the age and condition of our buses. I fully agree, definitions - we can stand in this House all night long and we can define whatever means of transportation we want to call them. Whether it be a taxi or a bus, it is still a people mover. In many cases we are moving our loved ones, either our children or our grandchildren, and it is important that any government, whether it be Liberal of Conservative or NDP, take the necessary steps and efforts to make sure that care is given and due diligence is paid to making sure that our kids, our loved ones, are taken care of when they get on those buses.

We have been very fortunate in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker, because things could have been a lot worse, I guess, with the amount of busing that takes place and some of the dangerous roads that we travel on, and of course with the very intemperate or inclement weather conditions that we face. A short while ago we heard of an incident, I think it was in the Grand Falls area, where a particular piece of heavy equipment came out and hit a bus. Fortunately, nobody was injured. All to often we hear about somewhere in Ontario, where, I guess, more high speeds were involved or whatever the circumstances were, but some children were killed. In Quebec a little while ago we had some children killed. It is important, it is very, very important, that we pay particular attention to the buses of this Province.

Granted, the government this year put more money into buses, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that money will go to school boards that have their own bus fleets. There are other parts of this Province where busing contracts are offered out to private contractors. That is where the age and condition of buses comes into this. Mr. Speaker, often we hear the story about somebody going to Ontario or Quebec and purchasing a used bus to come back here and transport our children, whereas right now in the Province we have the advantage of some of the school boards here with their own bus fleets. They will have their children in certain parts of our Province on new buses, on new equipment. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we pay attention to that.

I want to relate as well to the clause there regarding the thirty-day grace period after you pay at a bank your fee for the driver's licence or for your licence plate. I want to refer to that in a second.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the amount of time - that there is not going to be a larger slowdown at the Motor Vehicle Registration department, I say, Minister, because a few years ago, a short time ago, we had complaints about people paying at the bank and then having to break the law in many instances because they could not make that thirty day period. Because what would happen is that they would go to the bank, and usually it would be at the end of a month or something when they realized that their licence was expired, and then they would have to wait until the bank processed their claim, the money was forwarded off with the information documentation to Motor Vehicle Registration, and then, of course, there at Motor Vehicle Registration, because of understaffing, high workloads, we end up with a delay coming back sometimes of forty-five, fifty, sixty days.

I know, just last summer, I purchased a piece of equipment in July and I think it was almost Christmas before I received the stickers for that particular piece of equipment. So, Mr. Speaker, it brings the question: Were some of these amendments here a way of covering up a shortfall that the government may be encountering in their Motor Vehicle Inspection Division, the amount of wait times that people are encountering?

Just this past month, I spoke to a young person from St. Bride's who was down in Harbour Grace trying to get a road test, and they had to get a loan of a vehicle to come from St. Bride's to Harbour Grace to get a road test. The extra cost and extra expense, the extra time involved in doing that, driving from St. Bride's to Harbour Grace, which is a substantial distance.

Mr. Speaker, a short while ago, up until about two years ago, you could go to Placentia, until that service was removed from the Placentia area. So, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if some of these amendments that are in there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, okay.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that, just because we are going to extend that thirty day period - and I assume, Minister, that it is going to be extended, at the discretion of the minister, through regulations, that we are not going to shorten the period of time from thirty to fifteen days. I assume that it is going to be thirty days, or longer, depending upon the circumstances, because there are a number of things that would affect that.

We have to make allowances in this day and age, when we are working through the electronic media of somebody registering on line or paying through a bank. You have to make allowances for electronic failure, you have to make allowances for postal disruptions and, of course, the geographic demands that this Province places upon the various means of transportation.

MR. JOYCE: Human error.

MR. SWEENEY: And, of course, the big one, as my colleague for the Bay of Islands says, human error.

I am glad to see that provision in that act because I know, for law-abiding people, they get concerned. Many people are sticklers. After thirty days, they feel that they may not be able to take their vehicle on the road because they do not have a driver's licence or they do not have the sticker to go on their vehicle. That is a concern that I am glad to see relieved.

Mr. Speaker, another thing that I see here, and I am glad to see, is the flexibility to allow nurse practitioners to ascertain somebody's fitness as to whether they can drive or not. That is a positive note. I will say that because we all know, in many parts of this Province, it is very difficult to see a physician, to see a doctor. There is nothing more frustrating. Most of the people who are in that situation are people who have had health problems, whether it be from diabetic seizures or from age-related problems.

I think the flag over at Motor Vehicle Registration is at seventy-five, I think, that you have to get a health certificate to continue on driving. There is nothing worse than telling some person in good condition, who has been driving a lifetime, that they have to wait now until they see a doctor, and in this period of time their driver's licence has elapsed and they are left feeling helpless. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that is happening there.

The language regarding nurse practitioners in the bill, which encompasses a couple of sections there, enabling them to do other things like the seat belt requirement, that is an important factor as well. Just the aggravation, most of the time, of going to a doctor just to get a medical certificate filled out, I am glad to see that particular part is ended. Again, I could be political here and say that it is just another measure to relieve the workload on doctors, but I would like to think that in the good spirit in which this bill is probably presented, it is in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago the government increased the fees through motor vehicle registration for licensing of vehicles. The price now to license a car is $180, and a lot of people out there are finding it very rough and very difficult to pay those fees. They keep asking: Well, what are we getting for this extra money? Because, believe it or not, it is not like years ago when you would get a new license plate. All you get now is a little bit of metal foil that sticks on the corner of a license plate. They say: Well, $180 and the conditions of my roads are not getting any better. I am still breaking off struts and shocks and damaging wheels and rims. I was on Route 70 in my district, Mr. Speaker, and people are still stopping me on the street and saying: What is happening? How come we have to pay this $180?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see, although this is nothing in this bill on highway enforcement, the Highway Traffic Act, that would assure the public that their money is going to be spent for repairs on particular roads. I really don't want to get into the deplorable conditions of the roads, because I see that there is some money being spent this year on the Trans-Canada. There are some glitches out there that still need to be looked after, between here and Roach's Line.

I just want to encourage the minister, and the Minister of Finance, that this money that is being taken, this extra money, to invest it wisely in our roads, invest it in our road safety. When I speak of road safety, Minister, it is still a little bit fuzzy about the use of flag persons and signs on construction sites. I thought, probably in my naivety, that that was mandatory anyway, that if a company was going to go out - there is one section of the Act there that says that signs shall be placed up where traffic is going to be obstructed. I am glad to see that there is some teeth there in the act which governs that any highway, or any obstruction of traffic, that signage will be put up or a flag person put in place to make sure that traffic is allowed to pass safely. I guess, practically is probably the best word for it.

I think the very issue of road safety rings through to all our hearts. Just last night, after I left here going out, I saw an accident out there on the road where somebody had a moose down, and the lines on the highway yet have not been done. There are no lines on the highway - a very important part of driving in this Province. It is very hard to get your bearings in the nighttime when you are driving along.

Just outside the city here there was a moose knocked down and a car was damaged. A short while after that, on my way through Brigus Junction, there were six moose standing on the side of the road. I managed to see them at the last minute, but if there had been lines on the highway at least there would have been something there to reflect some light or some shadow. As it turned out last night, there was just nothing. There was nothing there whatsoever. So when we talk about highway traffic -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: You are darn right. I was very fortunate actually that there were six because the person who never seen the one happened to hit it. I travel that highway quite a bit every night, that is why when we talk about these family, friendly evenings here in the House, I sort of get a lump in my throat about having to tackle that highway and go home and cuddle in my own bed, because I am one of these strange people who gets the best night's sleep in his own bed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you go home every night?

MR. SWEENEY: When I can, yes. When I am not here entertaining you folks, I try to get home.

There is another part in this bill, and when I see about regulations, when I see regulation mentioned -

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I am not going to give you that pleasure yet. I will keep you awake for another little while, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl.

When we talk about regulations, the devil is in the detail. I am always cautious about wanting to see the regulation because when we pass the bill, we leave the regulation either to somebody in the bureaucracy of government to bring forward to the minister in that department and have them passed. I always like to know: What impact will that particular regulation have on the public?

There is another issue there, and it says to deal with one licence plate.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Minister of Finance, the only time I never see a moose is when I have my moose licence. Like last year, I didn't see one. I did not even see a polar bear.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not think you would do much harm if you did get a licence.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, no, I have had my share, I can tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, when we say one licence plate, again, I will go back to a pet project of mine when I was minister of that department. The government of the day implemented the veterans' licence plate. I am wondering if this legislation will supercede that veterans' licence plate? I am wondering - and I do not think we should because I think it is an honour and a distinction for a veteran of this Province to have that particular licence plate on his or her vehicle. But one of the problems, minister, I will say - and I have had calls from veterans and they are a little bit perplexed because it has gotten away somewhat from the intent of what the plate was. It is not an ornament to be used like some of the plates on the front of the car. It is a plate to be used on the back of the car stating very proudly that this particular person did serve their country. Unfortunately, the RCMP or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary do not have any access to that plate in their system. The person still has to open the trunk of their car and show the plate they had when they first got their vehicle. There is no registration on that particular plate. Minister, I raised that issue before on behalf of a number of people and on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion here in this Province, actually. It seems like it should be a simple problem in this day of high technology, that we get away from that sort of thing.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Every licence plate for the veterans, I say to the Member for Trinity North, has a different number from the other plate. It is not like the plate where it is a volunteer fire department or anything like that. This plate has a different set of numbers. I think, maybe, there might have been 500 printed in the beginning to allow people to get those plates.

So, it may sound like a small issue, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very important issue. Like a friend of mine who is a veteran in Carbonear said: What is the sense of it? I have to go through this foolishness every time that I get pulled in because my plate looks different or because I do not have that on my registration card. So, it seems like a small problem, and for the good of our veterans, I think we should be able to fix it.

There is another one here that I wanted to speak to. I am glad to see that the standards in clause 11 of the bill - I am glad to see that that subsection will change from the Canadian Medical Association standards to the adoption of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administration standards. Those standards will probably better serve the people of this Province.

There is another part that I am somewhat concerned about and that is the cars that are deemed unrepairable or deemed salvage. I sort of wonder sometimes about some of the vehicles that are on our roads today. I noticed in a two-week period last spring there were five vehicles from outside the city to the Confederation Building here with their side axles dropped off or their front wheel off. I am just wondering, is there any enforcement taking place? Do our enforcement officers - I know we have made some changes with regard to checking trucks, but do our enforcement officers, are they in anyway diminished from checking vehicles on the road? What would the RCMP or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary - what powers would they have in this particular act to deem a car if it is unrepairable or unsalvageable? Because far too often - and I know I am probably getting ahead of myself from committee stage but these are points of concern that I have and we hear it from time to time when the public themselves call into various programs and open line programs or call me questioning me on some of these things as to why this vehicle is on the road for such a period of time and what period of time that we would have to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I am almost prepared to clue up on this particular section. The issues that I have with regard to the Highway Traffic Act still reflect back to general road safety, the condition of our roads in various parts of our Province, the poor quality, the state of disrepair that we have. We run, I guess, a short tourism season and we have a short fishing season in this Province and these vehicles are pounding over these roads. People in motorhomes and everything else going over these roads and a lot of the roads are in a state of disrepair. If we are going to get people back here from the tourism sector - I do not think anyone would like to drive up from Florida and have the front-end beat off their van or off their motorhome, as I understood happened to the Premier one time when he made a trip up the Northern Peninsula, that he tore the exhaust system off his motorhome. So, I hope the Premier was on the spot and reacted properly and had that road repaired before somebody else came along and did it.

The age of school buses, as I said earlier, must bear importance under the Highway Traffic Act. I do not think there should be two classes of students in this Province. I think that any student going to school, who has to get on a bus, should have the same right to a good bus or a new bus as in any other part of the Province. Just because one portion of my school board out there does not have a bus fleet, whereas in Central Newfoundland they have their own, I do not think that we should discriminate or provide any distinction between two groups of students. So, they should have the same opportunity as those.

I also say to the Minister of Education, that is a factor that should be taken into consideration when we get into rural school closures, the type of transportation system that the students are going to have and even in determining what schools should be closed, because I do not think it is conscionable in some areas of this Province for children, five, six, seven, eight years of age, be travelling an hour to an hour-and-a-half on our roads. It is bad enough when the roads are in good condition and driving on good buses, but when they are not, I think that we should definitely spend some time and effort looking at doing what is right.

Mr. Speaker, when we get to the next stage I will have some questions for the minister regarding parts of this bill and we will see how it goes from there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to rise this evening and say a few words on Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

Before I start, I want to say to the Member for Carbonear, in the area that I represent we would love to have roads that you are able to put a yellow line on. Not to diminish his comments about the dangers that it poses, but it just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, the amount of work that is left to do in this Province when it comes to road repair.

MR. HARRIS: He saw six moose, you saw 1,000 caribou.

MR. R. COLLINS: One thousand caribou, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are some good amendments proposed in this Bill 30 that empowers the legislation over and above what it is today, and I completely agree with the minister on the changes put forward concerning the definition of taxi and isolating that from vehicles that are used to transport persons with disabilities, students with disabilities, or other events that are contracted by the school board. Because, Mr. Speaker, I know of people who had contracts for providing services like this to school boards, who had to give them up because they could not afford to pay the high insurance premiums that went along with getting the contract because of the way that the vehicles were classified.

I say to the minister that I think that is a good move, to isolate that and make a distinction between a taxi and people who operate by contract with the school boards to provide service to the public in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, as I was reading through the legislation, I was wondering about the thirty day provision that is currently there and to be replaced by regulation. I am wondering, when we get to the next stage of the bill, if the minister would explain that and if there is a problem with the current thirty day provision that currently exists if payments are made via a bank. There very well may be, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if the minister would be able to address that in her next remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the section that applies to nurse practitioners, who now will be able to do medical reviews of persons who qualify for a licence, or are seeking to have their licence continue, or whether or not their licence will be discontinued, it is not only, as the previous speaker said, relieving work from doctors but it does another thing. I think it is a better service for people out in rural areas of the Province, and in isolated areas, who may very well have access to a nurse practitioner but may not have access to a doctor when they need to see one or get things done. So, I say to the minister that I certainly support having nurse practitioners fulfill that role because I think it will provide a better service to the people of the Province in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, there is another section of this bill that is amended that talks about when roadwork is under construction, or if there is an obstruction or things of that nature, that there would have to be signs or a flags person or someone else. I was sort of surprised by that, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that may have been the case all along, that if somebody is carrying out roadwork, or if they are doing construction, or if they are obstructing a highway, that they would be required to have it marked; but, as I was thinking about it, I suppose, there is another example about, like, vehicles breaking down. All vehicles are not equipped with markers to place 150 feet behind their vehicle, or 150 feet ahead of their vehicle, markers that would identify a hazard ahead. I am wondering whether or not the change to this bill would require everybody to carry such identifying markers in their vehicle in the event that they broke down and their car presented a hazard. I know now that you try to push it off, or I know people go through great lengths, but I am wondering, as a result of this change, would it be part of the equipment that you would be required to carry in your vehicles, either flares or identifying markers, that would warn people that there is a disabled car ahead, albeit maybe on the side of the road? - but, as we know, all the shoulders on all the roads in the Province are not wide enough all the time for vehicles to get completely off. Indeed, in some areas, Mr. Speaker, I know I drove out around the Cape Shore and there was some beautiful scenery along the way that I really would have liked to have stopped and taken pictures of, or to have had a better look, but there wasn't a shoulder for miles and miles and miles that you could pull over on, and the same thing holds true on the Trans-Labrador Highway. It is one of the complaints, really, that we receive, and I know the Member for Lake Melville receives, the lack of places for tourists or the travelling public to be able to pull over with any degree of safety from passing traffic. So I am wondering, again, whether or not this change to the act would require that people carry identifiable markers to warn people that there is a disabled car and that they are not able to get it completely out of harm's way, perhaps, in many cases.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot more to say on this bill. The changes that are proposed are straightforward, but there is one area that I do want to speak on, and I think it is a very serious issue and one that concerns a lot of people in this Province. The previous speaker spoke, and he talked about cars and vehicles on our highways, wondering whether or not the police are able to check whether or not they are roadworthy, whether or not the enforcement officers with the Department of Transportation and Works are active enough in pursuing and identifying vehicles on our roads that may not be roadworthy.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there is one important thing that is missing from a change to Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. I think the minister would do well if she would have brought forward, as an amendment in this bill, the reinstatement of vehicle inspections. That was done away with a number of years ago, but a lot of people in this Province, since the vehicle inspections were done away with, are quite concerned, at times, wondering whether or not the vehicles that are coming towards them are indeed safe to be on the road.

I say to the minister that she can do that by changing this legislation and, at the same time, lowering the cost that we now pay to obtain our licence plates for our vehicles so that the cost is lowered. The difference in what we pay now and what we should be paying, if that cost was lowered enough, it could very well pay for the vehicle inspections to be carried out so that the additional cost is not passed on to the consumer in its fullest extent.

I think the minister should have looked more closely into reinstating the vehicle inspection act and, after vehicles get a certain age, they would have to be annually inspected before they could get a licence to go back on the road, like it used to be a few years ago before it was changed and eliminated.

I think if there is one area that we are lacking in this Province for road safety, more so than the roads themselves, Madam Speaker - I see the Chair has changed - if there is one thing that should be done, it is the reinstatement of that vehicle inspection. I would ask the minister to consider proposing that as an additional amendment to the current bill that she has before the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will just stand and have a few words on a few of the amendments on Bill 30. One of the first things I will comment on is clause 8 of the bill, a clause to enable nurse practitioners to report on the medical conditions and the ability of a person with respect to driving.

That is one part of keeping our roads safe, but another part - I have been harping on it for about a year, and from my understanding it was taken care of in last year's budget - is that if some senior citizen had to get a re-examination done, had to get another driver's test done, he would have to pay $100. Some of them have to do it twice a year. From understanding, in the Budget that has been eliminated. That is a positive thing. Having nurse practitioners and other medical people able to request to have seniors or people with other problems get re-examined on the highways is a positive thing, and I commend the government for doing that. A lot of seniors couldn't afford to get it done, and a lot of times people may be hesitant to request, and some family members, because it cost $100 and some seniors just didn't want to do it. That was a positive thing.

I look on Clause 6, the bill "... making regulations with respect to insurance requirements of vehicles that transport children to and from school and school related activities under contract with the school board". That is a great move also, to ensure that all children are safe when driving to and from school, through some kind of universal insurance program in place, that no matter where you live, what part of the region you live in, you are safe and the vehicle you drive in will have proper insurance. That is positive, Madam Speaker, very positive, and I commend the minister for bringing in that piece of the Act.

Clause 7 is the one that I am going to have a bit of difficulty with, and I am going to wonder if, once this bill is introduced, the minister is going to exercise her powers, or is this just going to be a paper tiger. Clause 7 of the bill would propose that "....section 162.1 of the Act. This section would require persons carrying out road repair, construction or causing an obstruction to place warning signs or flag persons on the highway sections that are being worked upon or obstructed." Madam Chair, this is something that I have a bit of a concern with myself, concerning the Bay of Islands. I know the minister is listening attentively to it. I am going to see if this Act - and I may ask questions later, just to see if this Act is going to be actually fulfilled. Is it going to be an Act which has some teeth?

I will read Clause 7. "The Act is amended by immediately after section 162 the following: 162.1 Where work is carried out on a highway or an activity is conducted that obstructs all or part of the travel lane of a highway, the person responsible for carrying out that work or causing that obstruction shall ensure that (a) warning signs or other markers; or (b) persons with a flag or sign, are used to control the movement of traffic around the work or obstruction and to warn persons of the section of highway that is being worked upon or is obstructed."

Where I get back to the minister on this, the roads in the Bay of Islands, Madam Minister - and I will just give you a good example, the road in McIver's. Last year, and it is going to happen again this year - it is gradually happening, there are signs up. Last year, I say to the minister - I know she is taking notes over there. I know she wants to hear what I have to say, I am sure of that. Last year going up to a section in the part of the highway - and the former Minister of Transportation, I had to practically embarrass him on Open Line to get the work done because of safety.

Madam Minister, when you go down the road to the section in McIver's, which has to be done again this year, there are four signs going up to the obstruction in the road; four signs. The first one was a danger sign. The second one was a bump sign. The third one was a slow sign, and the fourth one was a twenty kilometre sign. So, my question to the minister, and she can answer it later: Are you going to enforce these rules to the Department of Transportation and Works who are obstructing the roads by not repairing the roads properly? That is my question to the minister. If you are fully intent on improving road safety and improving the safety of the roads for all individuals and to amend the Highway Traffic Act to the extent where it is actually going to be workable and pass this act and follow through with it: Is the minister prepared to take on her colleague, the Department of Transportation and Works, who last year - and it is going to happen this year, it is already started. There are already several signs up - who already started, that there were four signs each way coming to a bad section of the road. The road actually had a five-foot drop. From one corner to the other corner was a five-foot drop. Mufflers were beat up, cars were beat up, springs were beat up. Yet, I could not get the road fixed until I embarrassed that minister on Open Line. That is what I had to do.

This year the same thing is happening. Exactly the same thing is going to happen, and I will let the minister know, when this act is proclaimed I will be writing her and asking her to enforce this act on certain sections of the roads in the Bay of Islands. I will give you an example, Madam Minister. I know you want to hear the examples because it is a serious situation. There has already been two incidents in the Bay of Islands this spring because the Minister of Transportation and Works, for political purposes, is the only thing I can say, is putting politics ahead of safety.

MR. E. BYRNE: It must be the cost of doing it (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The cost of what?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Yes. Oh, I do not know. I know two of the sections where the gabion baskets are, what happened is that the bigger rocks came down and pushed the gabion baskets out and there is a big gap there. Someone has to come in - I am not sure, it would not cost a lot because what you have to do is restore the gabion baskets. The second thing that you have to do is - where last year there was no highway summer maintenance, in behind the gabion baskets it is all full of rocks. So what happens, the gabion baskets are this high, the rocks behind it are that high, and the rocks just come right over it. You have to trench it out behind, and there are certain sections of the gabion baskets that are actually demolished. Tractors may have tore it out or a bigger rock may have pushed it out.

Madam Minister, this year alone there have been two accidents on that road with boulders in the middle of the road that cars actually hit. They went to the department trying to - and I even wrote on their behalf. The reason why they said they were not paid is because they have signs up: Watch out for falling rock.

My question to the minister, and I ask the minister in all sincerity: When this act is proclaimed are you going to ensure that the roads in the Bay of Island, which has not received - and I say this with total 100 per cent. There has not been one cent spent in the Bay of Island, not one cent - except for that piece of road last year - not one cent spent in three years. They cancelled everything in 2004. In 2005 there was none. This year there is one culvert being spent, $8,000, for the whole Bay of Islands.

Six mayors wrote the minister, they never even got a response, for safety on the roads in the Bay of Islands. They never got a response. I wrote the Minister of Transportation and Works three times asking for a meeting, just to sit down and express the concerns. I spoke to him several times. I brought it up in the Estimates and guess what, Madam Minister? It is going to fall on your shoulders, because once this act is proclaimed you will be getting a letter from me asking you to enforce this act because the roads in the Bay of Islands are completely unsafe. It is a shame why politics is being put ahead of safety. Madam Minister, it is going to be on your shoulders to enforce this act to the minister, your colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, because I will get that work done. I will get the work done. I will stay on it until it is done, and please God, in between that, no one get hurts. This is not a luxury. Absolutely! This is not going to say you are going to get something done, or it is going to get you a few votes, or a lot of people will be pleased with you. This is safety.

When I have an incident in the Bay of Islands where there is a boulder in the middle of the road, Madam Minister, and a car comes up and causes $3,000 worth of damage, it is not a pebble, I can assure you that. The reason why compensation was not paid by Transportation is because they said: We have signs up: Watch out for falling rock. What they forget to say is that the gabion baskets, which should be fixed, which they are well-aware is not fixed because of political reasons. Absolutely! There is no other reason only political reasons.

I challenged the minister last year. I challenged the minister this year. The table of recommendations from the Department of Transportation and Works in Deer Lake - they will not do it. They absolutely will not do it because the recommendations would show that these safety concerns have to be done. The former Minister of Transportation and Works last year was well aware of it. I wrote him twice. He never received the letters, but he finally got it. Just like some conversion, he sent the deputy minister out - oh, all of a sudden, we have a problem. They went out and did some band-aid solution to it. I said then, and I will say it again, that was not going to work. In order to fix the problem, which is a major safety concern, you have to do major work. What the engineers call, and the people who know it, there is moving ground. No matter what you do, unless you take it up and remove the water from underneath somehow, it is going to keep happening.

Actually, I will tell you how bad it was last year, Madam Speaker. Trees on the other side of the road - if you are driving out, going east, the dip on the lefthand side of the road moved so much there were trees bent over. Yet, we could not get the former Minister of Transportation and Works to correct a safety issue until he was embarrassed on Open Line. When he was finally embarrassed on Open Line, the deputy minister went out and, sure enough, there was a problem. I am telling the minister right here now, Madam Minister, you will be getting a letter from me asking to enforce this because I can assure you, it is just not fair what is happening. Absolutely, not fair.

I will give you another example, Madam Minister, and see how much you are going to enforce this act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Oh, no, I have to explain it to her. I have to explain it to her.

With the reduction in summer maintenance, there are going to be three people in the Bay of Islands working summer maintenance. Three. They usually work three at a time, or four. They usually have four. If one of them is off on holidays, one is on the tractor, or one is doing guardrail or one is doing any road maintenance, there is no one there with the signs to slow down traffic, absolutely no one. There used to be five. There are two off on sick leave, and there are two laid off. They always had a few extra, and the minister - I can tell you now, I already spoke to officials in the department, and the former Minister of Transportation knows what I usually say from the department is correct because I get it first-hand right from them. Like last year, I got it first-hand from them all. Right now, if there is either one, or if two of them are down, if two of the workers are down doing any kind of roadwork, if there is a tractor involved, if either one of them are down, they cannot do their work in the District of the Bay of Islands because of lack of personnel. They cannot do it.

I ask if the Minister of Government Services is going to enforce this act. Do I think she is going to enforce the act? I do not think she will. I, personally, do not think she will, because I do not think she will go down to the Minister of Transportation and Works, where there are boulders falling down on the road, highways unsafe, for her to say that you are creating an obstruction on the major highway in the Bay of Islands and you have to correct it. I do not think she is going to be able to do it. She may do it to some small construction company, and say: Oh, we are going to enforce this; we are going to come down on you. But do you think that she is going to do that to her own department? She is not going to do it. I do not think you are, Minister - please God, I hope I am wrong - before someone gets hurts, I say to the minister, before someone gets hurt; because, when six mayors from the North Shore of the Bay of Islands write the minister and say we have a major problem, and they do not even get a response - to the best of my knowledge, they never even got a response.

I look at the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I will just go through a few of them. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, sometimes we have issues, sit down and need to talk to him, need to chat, and not a problem. I look at the Minister of Environment over there. We had a few issues. We sat down. The Minister of Health, I remember, during the Estimates, we had a concern that was raised. Too bad it got to that stage, but it was about the respite bed in Corner Brook. I gave the Minister of Health a heads-up on it. He said: Ed, we will take care of it. I gave him a name, a person who is heavily involved with it and needed it done. I have to give the Minister of Health credit; he picked up the phone that night and phoned that lady. He said he was going to do it. He did it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I give him credit; he did it. I phoned him back and I thanked him for doing it. He did that and the issue was settled. Two days later we had another issue, but that issue, the Minister of Health - and he did call that person.

I know the former Minister of Tourism, when we worked together and there was recreation, if I needed a meeting with him, not a problem. Now, I might not get what I want. Even though we are good friends, we might not get what we want, but yet he would have the courtesy to sit down and go through it.

The former Minister of Education, we went to an opening of a school in Lark Harbour. We went to a meeting out in Lark Harbour. I got up on the stage and spoke. He got up and he praised me up so much I thought he had a conversion, he was going to be a Liberal. He praised me up so much, I thought he was going to be a Liberal, but he was as true gentleman. He was a true gentleman, I have to give him credit, but here I am writing the Minister of Transportation and Works on three occasions on safety concerns and cannot get a meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Well, the previous minister would not even talk to me. I did not mind that. The only time I got to talk to the previous minister was on Open Line. The only way to get something done, I had to embarrass him, telling me that he did not know anything about it, I did not write him. I faxed the two letters to his office. He wrote me a letter of apology, saying: What you should have done is faxed them this morning so I would not have to say that. He turns around that afternoon and writes me a letter of apology, saying: We received the letters now. We found them, my fault. The reason he gave me was that his officials were out doing up a response that I wrote him three months earlier. So, the officials somewhere in the department took three months to do up a response.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not reading his letters.

MR. JOYCE: Whatever. I do not know.

Even the former Minister of Health, the Member for Topsail, if I had concerns when she was the minister, there were no problem sitting down and giving her a call and she returned your calls. Absolutely no problem whatsoever, but when you have a major safety concern - and this sticks with me - if you have a major safety concern and you cannot even sit down with the minister who is responsible, who will not even sit down with you....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Government Service and Lands (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Give her credit, she does. The Minister of Government Services and Lands, I wrote her on several issues, she does response. You might not get what you want, and that is fine, that is not a problem, but at least you get the courtesy of a response. Then, if the issue is raised, see what you can do. That is what you are there for. That is how it was done.

Madam Speaker, can you imagine? I was in the Estimates with this minister and we were talking about salt and sand on the roads. I said: Come out and meet with the mayors if you don't think it is a hazard. Do you know what he said to me in the Estimates? I am not meeting with them. Here is a minister who I am asking to go out and meet with mayors, that roads are unsafe, and he is not going to meet with them. It is just the epitome of arrogance. There is nothing else I can say. Arrogance! Total arrogance! Absolutely arrogant!

Even the Government House Leader, I have to give him credit, you might not get what you want but you will get a response and you will get a phone call returned. You have to speak as it is. Sometimes you may not get what you want. The former minister is the same way. For whatever reason, these two ministers I could deal with - mostly everybody out there. With the roads in the Bay of Island - except for last year with the embarrassment with McIver's. Except for the, I think it was $8,000, for the culvert there hasn't been a cent spent in the Bay of Islands in the last three years for safety.

AN HON. MEMBER: I inform the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. JOYCE: Well, let me tell you, I will get back up again, because this is a safety concern. I will be up again tonight, I will be up again tomorrow, I will be up again Thursday, I will be up again Monday, I will be going until the roads in the Bay of Islands are safe. I am not asking for any luxury, I am asking for safety, and it is incumbent upon any government to treat the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect and ensure that safety is a number one priority, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: Just to clue up?

Madam Speaker, I am sure I will be back and I will be asking the minister questions. Minister, I just let you know that I will be writing you, because the Bay of Islands roads are totally unsafe. I know you won't, but if you ever could speak to the highway officials in Deer Lake and ask them their priorities, they would tell you, as they told me last year - and the former minister will deny it but it finally got (inaudible) - that the roads are unsafe, they need to be done and they should be done. If you are going to enforce this Act, it has to be done and you have to bring the Department of Transportation and Works to stand to bear for the lack of respect that they are showing to the people of the Bay of Islands by putting in unsafe roads.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased tonight to stand and respond to Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

This is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have seen come through this House in this session. There have been many others, but anything that happens on the highways of our Province affects everyone of us.

I wanted to talk about a few clauses in this bill that might bring it to the attention of those viewing tonight. Particularly, clause 2 of the bill would repeal and replace subsection 11. In other words, what that is saying is that anyone who pays their bill for a driver's licence renewal at a bank or a credit union, a financial institution, is going to be allowed a thirty day grace period in case they are ever stopped by the police on the highway. If they can show proof of having paid their bill somewhere, they will not be in line for a ticket; but, there is another issue at hand in Grand Falls-Windsor at the Motor Registration office, and that is the shortage of staff. That is the shortage of staff.

I had a constituent call me up last week and the earliest appointment that they could get for a driver's examination is August 4. Now, that was last week so I do not know what it would be this week. The minister, in her wisdom, closed out the rural driver examination offices around the Province, and one in particular was the driver examination office in Harbour Breton. As a result, all of these people in Harbour Breton and the people on the Connaigre Peninsula are now having to come to Grand Falls-Windsor to do their driver examination, both the written test and the road test.

As a result of that, we are now getting backlogged. It means that people who want to get an appointment to get a driver exam are having to wait. My understanding is that Motor Registration is trying to hire replacements for the Lewisporte office but, as of right now, that particular office is not filled.

It is this time of the year that everybody is out trying to get their driver's licence, especially young people just entering into driving for the first time. Summertime is the time that they want to take their driver's test. They want to be able to get in their car for graduation night, and be able to drive off in the family car on graduation night, as we can all recall our children wanting to do.

Imagine the disappointment of a young person graduating from school, taking their driver's course through a recognized agency, and then having to wait all summer, probably until August or September, until they are back and going to university, to do a driver exam. Now, that is hardly good enough, when you look at the fact that the Minister of Motor Registration or Government Services, as we call it now, increased drivers' licences from $140 to $180. Anyone who is willing to pay that kind of money should not have to wait two or three months to get their driver's test done.

Are you providing good service for that $180 fee? I guess that is the question. Certainly not when you look at people having to line up for three or four months to take a driver exam. I do not know, now, if you have an abundance of staff in St. John's or Mount Pearl that you would like to send out to Grand Falls-Windsor, but I would certainly like for you to look into that matter and make sure that the constituents in my area are not having to wait three or four months to take a driver's exam.

Now, I know that some of that money that you were going to collect in those extra fees was going to go for resurfacing our roads and so on. Twenty-six million dollars of that money in new fees are going to go towards roadwork, and that is a good thing.

Several of my colleagues have already spoken on this bill and they talked about highway safety. I know that, since this Budget, there have been more RCMP officers hired to police our roads, and that is a good thing. I must commend the government for putting more money into that area; however, if the RCMP are going to police our roads, you have to look at the fact that we do not have any lines on our highways. We do not have any lines on our highways, and that is a very dangerous thing.

When I came into work tonight at 7:00 o'clock, I noticed that the fog was rolling in from St. John's harbour, in over the mountains and everywhere else, and heading out to St. John's West. I would say now that the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace will face fog all the way to Harbour Grace and Carbonear tonight. When you compound the fog on the East Coast with the fact that there are no lines on the pavement, that is a recipe for disaster.

I have talked to many people who are telling me - I am on the highway every week, as I suppose are most MHAs who live and work out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - they are on the highway every week. I could almost set my car for Grand Falls-Windsor now. I know exactly every turn in the highway from St. John's to Grand Falls-Windsor.

We are facing bad roads, we are facing roads with no lines on them, and we are facing a big moose population. If it was not for VOCM giving their report morning, noon and night of moose on our highway, bringing our attention to the fact that we have to be alert looking for moose - I think they are doing a great public service letting us know where moose are. Even if, by the time we get up to that particular spot on the highway where they have announced moose are, and they are not there, at least you are looking for them. You are alert to the fact that there could be moose there. I must say, that is a wonderful public service that VOCM are doing, but they cannot do it alone.

I would suggest, and I heard people this morning saying: Here we are going into the May 24 weekend and there are no lines on our highways. I think for the past month, when I have been going out over the highway, I have seen a line-up for Butter Pot Park. There are trailers there of every description. There are snowmobile trailers there, there are boat trailers, there are travel trailers, there are motorhomes, there are pick-up trucks. You name it, anything that has wheels on it to hold their place is all lined up for Butter Pot Park. The fact remains, there is a danger travelling our highways. We have bad roads and no lines on our highways. This is a government with lots of money and they can correct that in short order. So I would suggest that they look at that right away.

The issue here, I think, out of all of this legislation is the fact that safety on our roads - and I want to look at certain clauses here now. Clause 6 in this particular bill would allow the making of insurance requirements with respect to the transporting of - to and from school and school related activities under a contract with the school board. What do you mean by that particular clause? Are you saying that anyone who decides to take young people for sports activities or school related activities, who rents a van or uses their own vehicle must be able to show supporting evidence that they are insured to take children? Is that what you are saying by that clause? I would like for the minister to elaborate on that clause.

Clause 7 - this seems pretty basic - would propose adding section 162.1 to the act which would require those people doing roadwork and construction to clearly mark the areas with flag persons or warning signs. I think that is so essential, particularly with the weather we have in our Province. Adequate markings, adequate clothing, and adequate signage is certainly essential. Many times we come upon a construction site on the highway and there is hardly enough notice before we are actually into the construction area. That would be a good thing to make changes there, and particularly the people who are working on our highways, to ensure that they have the safety outfits, the jackets, the hats and everything that goes with it, so we can see them on the highway.

Clause 8 would amend section 174 to enable nurse practitioners to report on the medical condition of a person with respect to driving. In other words, what the minister is saying, I would assume in this particular part of the legislation, is that nurse practitioners will have the same authority now as a general practitioner. By doing a medical exam, nurse practitioners will be able to sign off on the medical condition of a person who is ready to do a medical exam as part of their requirement for their driver's licence.

Clause 9 goes on to enable nurse practitioners to certify that a person is unable to wear a seatbelt. Well, you know, that is a situation where there are people who are unable to wear a seatbelt. Now, there is a great debate going on all around the country: Are you safer with a seatbelt on or off? I would say that you are safer with a seatbelt on going high speeds but there are people, due to certain medical conditions in our society, who are unable to wear a seatbelt. You just cannot say to an RCMP officer, if you are stopped on the highway: I can't wear a seatbelt. In order to have an exemption from wearing a seatbelt - at one point, you had to have a medical doctor sign a form saying that you had complete authorization not to wear a seatbelt. Now what this legislation will do, it will allow nurse practitioners to be able to do the same thing. That is a good thing because nurse practitioners are able to assist, and sometimes replace, the services of a medical doctor, particularly in areas that are unable to attract medical doctors. I know we have had a nurse practitioner in Buchans for a long time, along with doctors who do locums there, and also local doctors. It has been a great advantage to us in the Buchans area.

Clause 11 would amend subsection 195.(3) to change the Canadian Medical Association standards to the adoption of Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administration Standards. I would say that is particularly housekeeping. Everyone wants to know about having the same requirements for all provinces in Canada.

I understand there is going to be a new driver's licence in the future and it is going to contain much more information than we presently have on hand. I wonder if the minister would be able to share with this House when this new driver's licence will become available and what kind of information will be contained in that? Will it almost substitute for a passport at the border? I wonder, is that the plan? These are the kinds of things that would be interesting, I am sure, for the general public.

Minister, I would like to draw to your attention the condition of the road on the Buchans Highway. You talk in this act about the transporting of children on a school bus. We have to transport children on a school bus from Millertown, Buchans Junction to Buchans. There are alders on both sides of the road. The shoulders of the road are cracked because we have heavy equipment running over it, both hauling logs and hauling equipment for mining in the Buchans-Millertown area and we have ruts in our road. Now, these are the kinds of things that concern me as the MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans. I have been unsuccessful, to date, in trying to penetrate the mind of the Minister of Transportation and Works, although I know I have made a strong case and money is not an obstacle. Still, for all that, he will not go along with my request. I do not know why it is, and neither will any other member of Cabinet.

This is a bill that talks to the safety of transporting children and it also talks to the safety of transporting patients by ambulance. Many of our patients by ambulance, even the ones from Millertown and Buchans Junction, there has to be an ambulance come from the hospital in Buchans to first - actually, the person, if they are able, has to first go to Buchans and then they have to be examined and see whether or not they need to go on to Grand Falls-Windsor for other treatment. That means a trip sometimes to pick up the person in Millertown, bring them to Buchans, have them examined and then go right on to Grand Falls-Windsor.

Madam Minister, I am very concerned. I want to ensure that constituents of mine, and the public at large, have a safe road to go over. You might have heard me already in this House of Assembly talk about one incident, in particular, where the intravenous hookup in a patient's arm almost became dislodged when that patient was going from Grand Falls-Windsor to Buchans. Now, I am sure you do not want that to happen. I am sure it was the intention of this government, two years ago when they brought in the new fees, that it would be used exclusively for road repair and upgrades; $26.7 million of new fees and that was to improve our roads around the Province. I know that you are trying to be a responsible government here. I know that you are concerned about people who travel all over our Province - safety in every area of our Province.

I know the Premier has said on many occasions that he is committed to rural communities. Now this is an opportunity right here tonight. You have heard from my colleagues talking about conditions in rural communities. This is an opportunity for the minister to jump up on her feet and say: To the member across the House, I will take your concerns right away to the Minister of Transportation and Works. I will take it to the entire Cabinet. I will take it to the Premier because I believe you have a solid case here, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I believe that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has a solid case for repairs to the Buchans Highway. I have not even talked about the economy, all I have talked about was the safety issue, as how it pertains to the transport of children and people over our roads on the Buchans Highway.

It was so funny when I seen a news release come out from the Minister of Transportation and Works. He talked about all the money he was investing in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans. What a farce! All it was, was a few repairs that he was doing on the Trans-Canada Highway up around Aspen Brook, that the whole population of the Province travels over. Then I heard him say how much he was doing for one of my other colleagues. He spent a whole page announcing one culvert; a whole page of a news release announcing one culvert.

Now, I am sure that a government which leaves $76 million on the table must be able to find some reason to put it into blacktop on the rural roads in our Province. I know the Minister of Finance tried really hard to spend the money before March 31. He even phoned up every organization he could and said: Are you going to need any money before the end of March? He tried his best but he still had to leave $76 million on the table that he could not spend. Can you imagine? He paid off all the bills. He even gave NAPE $24 million. Still, after everything was said and done, he still had -

AN HON. MEMBER: He paid for The Rooms.

MS THISTLE: He paid for The Rooms. He paid for everything. He prepaid, yes. Everything that could be paid ahead of time, he paid for it. Still, after all was said and done, he still had $76 million that he could not spend.

Now, I saw last night he had a wonderful book on his desk. It was called the economic hit man. I thought he actually had written the book, but no, no. Actually, he had not written that book he told me, he was reading it. I thought it was his own book that he had written. It was called the economic hit man. I thought for sure it was his own book. I was waiting to see Loyola Sullivan on the bottom, but I never. My eyes are not that good that I could see right across twenty feet. Anyway, I can see clearly. I can see very clearly but what I am seeing is a government with $76 million that they could not spend.

MR. SULLIVAN: We didn't want to waste it.

MS THISTLE: You would not waste it.

Today I heard the same minister - no, not the minister. The Premier was the one who talked about a minuscule $300,000 that he had put into a business enterprise for Griffith's Guitars.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the Minister of Finance.

MS THISTLE: It was the Minister of Finance? Oh, it was the Minister of Finance who said that he had agreed to a loan after the Premier made it -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity and I shall return again.

Thank you.

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

If the minister speaks now she will close debate on Bill 30.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to thank my hon. colleagues across the way for their remarks. I certainly was paying attention to it. One of the issues they brought up was clause 2, a thirty-day grace period. This is for the advantage of the consumer so that their registration and licence could remain valid because currently we have a turnaround time normally of fifteen days, and this clause allows a greater flexibility. If a change in the time limit is required, such things as an unanticipated interruption in services, which has happened prior to this. That is designed just exactly for that.

Clause 7 is designed to improve highway safety, ensuring that there is adequate warning for motorists when there is work being carried out on the road. So, it is actually to put up their flag signs and all that, the markings.

One of the issues they brought up was the veteran's licence plate. The veterans will get one special veteran's plate which they will display, and one ordinary plate which they will pass on should they sell their car. This is what is happening now in the policy, but what we are doing here is just cleaning up the legislation.

They also brought up the issue of transporting children. This amendment has nothing to do with nor will it impact the number of children to be transported. What this amendment does, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - is that it will simply properly classify the private vehicles that are currently transporting children to schools so that they can pay the relevant amount of insurance.

They also talked about this school bus safety. Well, the Department of Government Services and the Department of Education are working together, and will continue to work together with the school boards, to enhance the safety and to strengthen our school transportation with our children.

They also talked about the fee here as well tonight. We did increase the licence fee, but we have put substantial dollars into our road infrastructure. Hon. members were saying in their remarks how the infrastructure was in a deplorable condition. We do not disagree with that, and that is why we have put $142 million into road infrastructure this year. These amendments, simply what they do is two things. One is for the private vehicles which I just alluded to. The second is the nurse practitioner who will now be able to certify some medical documents for the drivers in remote and rural areas. Where there is not a doctor or physician located, the nurse practitioner will perform that service for them.

I do not want to belabour this because we have had a fair bit of debate on this bill this evening and it is late into the hour. So, with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude and close second reading on this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic 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 Highway Traffic Act, Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, 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 Highway Traffic Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 30)

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 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House now be resolved into Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, and that I do now leave the Chair.

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.

MADAM CHAIR(Osborne): Order, please!

Bill 30, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act."

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 15.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 15 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 15 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 15 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

Oh, I am sorry, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I am sorry, Madam Chair, I was not noisy enough when I stood there.

I have a couple of questions and a few remarks that I would like to make to the minister.

I heard part of her explanation regarding the one licence plate per vehicle. The question that I have there is for most vehicles. I was wondering if the minister could explain what vehicles are exempt from the one licence plate, if you could elaborate more on that for the House?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, there is no one exempt. What I said was that the veterans had two licence plates. One is the special one that recognizes them as veterans who have served their country, and the other one is provided to them, but should they sell that car they have to give the other licence plate - not the one that is acknowledging them as serving our country - they would give that second licence plate to the person who purchased that car.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible). Most domestic vehicles are issued one plate, and I am wondering what other vehicles are on the highway that require two licence plates. Is this a deviance from anything that has happened in the past?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: No. This is an amendment to the bill, I say to the minister, and I am curious as to what most vehicles -

AN HON. MEMBER: What clause are you referring to?

MR. SWEENEY: Clause 3 would amend paragraph 16.2(b), to issue only one licence plate per vehicle. I would, out of interest for the public, like to know just what those -

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: I just want to explain clause 3 for the member there. In clause 3 it says: When the administrative practice changed with the Budget in 1997, the Act was not updated. A one plate rear display system is consistent with other jurisdictions in North America, Alberta, North West Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, P.E.I., Saskatchewan and the Yukon. Commercial vehicles, buses and ambulances will continue to require two plates for vehicle identification.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, Minister. That satisfies my query on that particular item, because it was not explained in the bill as I received it and I just wanted to know what was going on there.

In clause 6: Would the minister elaborate for me on the insurance requirements, because it says here: Would allow the making of insurance requirements with respect to the transporting of children to and from school and school related activities under a contract with the school board. I would like to know whether or not the insurance that the bus carries, or the particular piece of equipment carries, during the daytime, would that also cover extracurricular activities, or whatever other limitations might be placed on that particular policy?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, this clause is for the private vehicles. It allows the minister to say how much liability insurance they need to carry, so it gives the minister the flexibility here in this clause.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: That is partially what I was looking for, but does that include rental vehicles and vans that the school would rent? How is that covered? For instance, if I used my private vehicle, my van, would I be required to carry that to have students? Or if the school rented a van from a commercial company, what coverage would they be required to carry on that van?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: There would be no change in the insurance, Madam Chair. You have to carry the normal coverage for insurance. What this is for is only the ones who are engaged in the transportation of children. It says, the insurance regulations will be outlined by the minister's regulations, as they already are, for the ambulances, school buses, taxies and commercial vehicles. The only thing this is doing here is the private vehicle insurance where the children are being transported to the school now that it is contracted out by the school boards. We had to put that liability insurance on the vehicles.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

So, a rental vehicle is considered a private vehicle or...?

MS WHALEN: All insurance (inaudible) mandatory insurance program in this Province. All vehicles have to be insured.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes. I say to the minister, what I am striving to find out is: Does this clause determine what value of a policy, let's say, I would have to carry as a parent? Because in some areas of this Province right now where rural schools are being closed, parents are, actually, busing children because they do not feel safe on school buses and on the roads in the Province. So, parents are actually taking - and this is a call that came in since this debate started, by the way. There are parents out there who are curious and want to know if they are going to be concerned by this clause, clause 6, as to whether or not they are going to have a certain limit of insurance on their vehicle to carry their child or their neighbour's child to and from school? That is one of the problems, I guess, with the House being televised, that there are people who are tuned in and they want to get some answers.

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't see that has a problem.

MR. SWEENEY: Well, I say to the Government House Leader, it is a problem because a lot of people can only afford a certain amount of insurance.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) being televised, that's not right.

MR. SWEENEY: We do not either. That is why I am responding to the people who asked me the question. I am asking the minister on their behalf for that particular - yes, I do not wish to get anyone upset or anything tonight but I would like to get an answer just so that the viewing audience can say, at least I answered the question that they called in and asked me to do.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment is for a private vehicle that is considered a taxi now - you know, inadvertently caught this private vehicle in this legislation. What we are saying is now they are not going to be considered taxis any longer. They are contracted out for a specific reason, to bring children who have physical or behavioural reasons that they cannot get on a school bus. That is, basically, in rural Newfoundland where taxis are generally unavailable. So, there are some people who contract out with the school board to bring those children to and from the school, but they are considered right now as a taxi. We are saying this will eliminate that now, but they will still have to carry liability and the mandatory coverage that is required in this Province. It does not take away the insurance on it. All it says is they will not have to pay the exuberant rates like taxis pay right now. Actually, they are a private vehicle.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It still does not get to the question that I asked. It is people under contract, I understand, that you are talking about. The question that I asked was if I, as a parent, as an individual who lives in a rural community, who did not have the confidence in the bus, or in the road, that I use my own vehicle: Would I have to have mandatory coverage to carry my child or my neighbour's child to school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Chair, I honestly cannot believe this tonight, that I have five or six people answering a question for me, that I have asked the minister responsible for. It is from her department. It is her piece of legislation. In good faith, I am asking this question, and all of a sudden I have five or six people shouting answers to me across the floor.

Madam Chair, I want to assure the public out there that I am getting the proper answer, but I find it very hard to hear the proper answer. I have been asked to get it by somebody out there who called in and asked would I ask a question about - and this person is from a rural community.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, this is for private vehicles where there is a contract with a school. This has nothing to do with someone who is taking their children on a volunteer basis, driving them to and from wherever. They still have the same coverage and mandatory insurance that is required in this Province. What this is for is just what they entered into a contract with the school, to bring the children to and from school who have physical or behavioural reasons why they cannot go on a school bus. Right now, they are classified as taxis. We are saying, with this, they will not be classified as taxis. They will be a private vehicle, but they will be required to have insurance on that vehicle.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move on now to clause 9 where it would amend section 178 of the act to enable nurse practitioners.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: It was not my fault that the Chair did not see me standing, I say to the Government House Leader, when these were being passed.

I want to question the minister: Is there any indication that there are enough nurse practitioners out there who will be able to fill the need that will arise here now? Where will they be? Will there be public nursing clinics out there for people to go to, or is this portion of the bill just related to rural Newfoundland and not to urban areas? Will there be a different system in place?

These are all very legitimate questions, I say to the minister. I am not up tonight for my benefit of talking at 11:18. These are questions that I have from people that I am concerned about, and they are as well. Because there are parts of this Province that do not have adequate medical services right now, there is no question about that. I know in our own area of Conception Bay North there are waiting times of four to five to six weeks to see a physician. I do not think you would do well by going to an emergency clinic to try to get a medical for a driver's licence. I do not think that would bode too well with the health care facilities.

What I want to know is, what availability there is - is there any consideration or any study given to that? - and if there are any public clinics about to be set up, or any funding there to fund more nurse practitioners.

Of course, the other part of it is: What fee would there be for that, and who would determine that fee? It is great to say that nursing practitioners are able to do that, but until we find out if, and or why, and how much, you know, I think we need to tell the public this. So, Minister?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, what this amendment is simply doing is allowing a nurse practitioner now to be able to document the medical documentation for drivers. It is already done by doctors, but in some cases, in remote and rural areas of our Province, there is not always a physician available. The nurse practitioner has extensive training, specialized training, and they can engage into this, with this amendment that we are making here this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: No fee.

MS WHALEN: There is no fee.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Chair, I will ask the minister: Is there any provision for areas of the Province where there is no doctor, there is no nurse practitioner? Is there any provision there, and is there anybody else authorized, through a regulation, that may be able to do that particular function?

I know - and again I will refer to the area that I am familiar with, the Conception Bay North area - I am not familiar with very many nurse practitioners and I know that there are people who are concerned about waiting times to go to clinics to see doctors for medical emergencies and medical needs, let alone getting driver's licence examinations.

I am just wondering, Minister, is there any provision in this act, or outside the act, in a regulation that would enable somebody else to do this particular function?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, it specifically says a nurse practitioner is qualified to do this work if there is not a doctor available to perform this service. So, it specifically states in the legislation, in the amendment, it has to be a nurse practitioner.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I spoke earlier on the issue. A few questions I will ask the minister concern the deplorable condition and unsafe roads in the Bay of Islands. I know the minister is well aware of it, because the departmental officials in Deer Lake have recommended it and they are still calling me trying to get the roads done. I said it before, and I say it again, it is nothing but arrogance when I write a minister of this government three times to try to get a meeting and I cannot get a meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Did you hear that?

MR. JOYCE: What did he say?

MS FOOTE: He said they are calling the wrong fellow, the Minister of Finance.

MR. JOYCE: What do you mean, calling the wrong fellow?

MS FOOTE: When the departmental officials (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: They are calling the wrong fellow, are they? That is good to see from the minister, Mr. Trustworthy, Mr. Truth Man himself. It is good to see. Ask the paramedics.

Anyway, the minister is well aware of the serious road conditions in the Bay of Islands - completely unsafe. It is completely irresponsible of any government to have roads in any part of this Province which are unsafe, completely unsafe. They are well aware of the roads. The minister is well aware of it. The departmental officials are well aware of it. The former minister was well aware of it last year, and did some patchwork. This is the point that I am going to get to the minister.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not trying to take away from the significance or the importance of the issue that the Member for the Bay of Islands is raising, but we are in Committee debate on this particular bill, on a clause-by-clause debate.

Again, I am not trying to demean or trying to say that the issue you are raising is not important but, with respect to the bill that is in front of us on Committee stage, the issue that you are raising does not reflect or have anything to do with the clauses that we are debating.

I ask the member - there is ample opportunity to have those issues raised in other forums. Again, I am not trying to say that the issue you are raising is not important but, with respect to the debate that is occurring now, essentially we have passed clauses 1 to 15. The member was not recognized as the critic and we are going through it clause by clause. The issue that you raised has nothing to do with the clauses that we are debating in Committee in terms of being relevant.

I just want to point that out for members, again not to try to underscore or undermine the importance of the issue as you see it, but really it is misplaced in terms of where it should be debated with the sections of this bill that we are debating right now.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the Government House Leader.

I look at clause 7. I ask the minister - in clause 7, the act says: "Where work is carried out on a highway or an activity is conducted that obstructs all or a part of the travel lane of a highway, the person responsible for carrying out that work or causing that obstruction shall ensure that (a) warning signs or other markers; or (b) persons with a flag...". I ask the minister, and I asked this earlier in second reading: If, for example, on the South Shore, where the minister is well aware of it, where the department is causing, because of neglect in the Bay of Islands, to have rocks on the road, will the minister ensure that the department is held to task and ensure that this type of work, and the safety of the people in the Bay of Islands are affected - because under this clause, anybody who causes an obstruction shall, in some way, have people direct traffic or close one lane. If you have a piece of rock 300 or 400 pounds in one lane, that is an obstruction, in my view, and the Department of Transportation and Works - over in McIver's last year - and I say to the minister, this is relevant because last year there was one lane closed down. One way going, there were four signs: slow, danger, twenty kilometres, bump. The other way, the same four signs.

The former minister is well aware, we did a patchwork job. The same problem is arising out there now. It is a safety concern. It is caused by the department, a lack of attention by the Department of Transportation and Works, and I ask the minister: Under this clause, will your department have the power, and will you execute the power to have the proper work done or have the road closed to ensure the safety of the people in the Bay of Islands?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, this clause is designed to improve the highway safety by ensuring that there is adequate warning for motorists of the type of work or obstruction that is going on. I would like to say to the hon. member that this clause will, indeed, be enforced.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Well, minister, I will be writing you soon on the conditions in the Bay of Islands. I have no problem taking you at your word, that the act will be enforced, and I trust that as soon as this is in legislation and proclaimed, that you will execute your duties and either have the road shut down or have the road fixed. I thank the minister for her response, and I am sure you will be hearing from me in the near future.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to go back to clause 8 and 9 regarding nurse practitioners. What I understand you are saying, minister, is that if you do not have a nurse practitioner in your area, or a doctor, you are going to have to drive to find one. Is that my understanding? Because already I see this - and do not go getting upset, because I have had an issue today in my district where we have lost a service in my district. The E.I. processing centre in Harbour Grace has been informed that they are going to be closed down.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: They all are? No, they are not all going to closed down, I say to the Member for Lake Melville. The ones in urban centres are not going to be closed, the ones in the rural communities are being closed. What I see here now - and I know that the intention may have been to provide nurse practitioners the ability to provide the service, but unfortunately, there are areas where we do not have nurse practitioners.

What I am saying here is that we are losing services in rural Newfoundland. We have lost motor vehicle inspections in the Province. We have lost motor vehicle examinations in certain areas of the Province, people have to drive a long way. I mentioned earlier tonight that somebody had to drive from St. Bride's to Harbour Grace to do a road test. We keep losing these services and here we are inflecting more misery, more expense, upon the people in the rural areas of our Province. Minister, that is one particular area.

The other one, while I am up, I will not be getting up and down. I will ask you to respond if you want to on another one. Clause 10, there is a section there in 186 of the act to allow making regulations respecting the audit of car dealers. I would like to get an explanation of that because there have been some changes made for the car dealers in this Province because their fees have been reduced. I would like to know what impact this would have for the car dealers.

I know everybody is getting antsy because I am asking questions - which I feel I must, I am the critic. I did not ask for this particular job. What does this entail, this particular audit of car dealers or making regulations for the car dealers? Were the car dealers consulted on this particular regulation or this particular part of the bill before it was put into this bill?

Another clause here is clause 12. It would amend 195.1 to require notification of the registrar, within ten days, where a vehicle is determined to be non-repairable or salvageable. I would like to know: Who determines whether a car is non-repairable or salvageable, and if it can be licenced anymore and what efforts are being made to police the fact whether somebody buys a salvaged vehicle and has it repaired and put back into the marketplace? Because even the car dealers themselves have sounded an alarm in this Province. A gentleman was on TV a couple of weeks ago and he blew the whistle on the Katrina vehicles coming in from the United States that are being salvaged, laundered and put back into the marketplace. I am just wondering if there is anybody in the department who is policing that and having that done?

I will stop at those three and keep some more for later.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Madam Chair, I will just cover the three points. The first one being that the nurse practitioner is actually enhancing this service. It is an improvement right now in remote areas and in rural areas. It is an improvement for this service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: You asked about the rights of the automobile dealers. This is giving us a right to audit the dealers. In the process of reviewing the oversight provision for automobile dealers, it was recognized there was insufficient legislative authority to ensure accountability for the activities that automobile dealers perform on behalf of Motor Registration in the registrations. So, this gives us the right now to audit.

The third point Mr. Sweeney raised, and I do not want to belabour this, but he talked about inspections. In November 1994, the past Administration had done away with mandatory inspections. There were no valid reasons for it. The reasons are still the same today, the same valid reasons, why we do not have inspections in the Province. There has been no demand for mandatory inspections. The hon. member knows why that program was done away with when he was in office, or his predecessors.

I would like to say that this amendment is strictly a routine housekeeping amendment. There are two amendments here tonight that I consider to be highlights and that is the nurse practitioner now being able to do medical documentation, and the fact that children were being transported in private cars that were being considered as taxis, that is no longer. That is the main content of this legislation tonight in the Highway Traffic Act. I hope this will clarify it for the hon. member over across the way.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The member over across the way is still waiting for an answer. I think the minister misunderstood my question. I asked, at one point - I think my second question was - was there any consultation done with the car dealers prior to bringing this bill to the House? If so, what input was received?

The other part was - it was not about inspections at all. The question I raised was a very simple question, and it regarded non-repairable or salvageable vehicles. Who determined whether they were non-repairable or salvageable or not, and was there any particular mechanism in the department to determine whether or not these Katrina vehicles and other vehicles that have been written off by insurance companies, or written off by people who deemed that they were not useable any more, to prevent them from coming into the marketplace so that our consumers, the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would not be duped by some unsavoury characters?

That is what I am asking, Minister. I want to know: Is there any way that we can be sure that these vehicles are not being brought into our Province, being put on our car lots here in the city? Because if we are doing audits - and this is important - if we are doing audits on car dealers, what are we auditing? Are we auditing their lots or are we auditing their books, you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Chair, I will wait for an answer.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: What you are doing, I guess what you are saying is, the audit is the regulated inventory of our plates with the dealers, Motor Registration plates, so we are doing an audit on regulatory inventory that they have.

The other one that you asked me about was writing off a car. Right now - it was a bit loose in the act. To make it more transparent, we are tightening up. We have a ten day limit, which (inaudible) industry practice of allowing a vehicle which is written off in an accident to be repaired and resold without the new owner or Motor Registration having a chance to find out it was originally written off. This should help improve the transparency of these transactions.

What we are saying here now is there is a ten day, so it is tightened up. It was far too loose.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Chair, we are getting close, I think.

What I am trying to determine is, who determines the car is non-repairable or salvageable? What assurance does the people of this Province have that somebody is not picking up a car, putting it together from pieces of other vehicles, and putting it back on the road? What mechanism is there in this Province? Is there a mechanism, or is it buyer beware?

We are changing the Highway Traffic Act and we get into making rules that the government should be notified, or the registrar should be notified, within ten days. I know myself that, in one instance that I am aware of, it took over thirty days before -

MR. E. BYRNE: Mean-spirited (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say in all honesty to the Government House Leader that I am not being mean-spirited. I am not mean-spirited. As a matter of fact, there is not a mean bone in my body and I take great offence to that.

MR. E. BYRNE: I wasn't talking to you.

MR. SWEENEY: Well, I am the only one standing and asking questions.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I never suggested that the man had a mean bone in his body. I was not speaking to the member speaking. If I had something to say to the member, I would say it on the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I will surrender on this tonight, Madam Chair, because I stood up here to ask some questions that were asked of me to ask, and to go through this and to feel like I am being confronted here and persecuted because I am up asking questions....

Madam Chair, I will sit now and the government can pass their bill.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The bill is passed and carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, 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 Bill 30 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 her to report Bill 30 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move Bill 30, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 30 be 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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, 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 Highway Traffic Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

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

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: The Opposition House Leader wanted to make a point, I think, before I move the adjournment.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a very productive day. I understand we are going to close things down now.

Sometimes it gets testy here, but we cannot forget the cordialities that should exist. On behalf of everyone over here in the Liberal caucus, I would like to wish the Government House Leader a Happy Birthday while there is still twenty minutes left in the day.

Happy Birthday!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can honestly say this has been a memorable birthday gift, but not necessarily the one I was looking forward to.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gesture by the Opposition House Leader and I move the adjournment of the House.

I believe tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. we are debating, Private Members' Day, a motion put forward by the Member for Gander. We look forward to the debate that will occur at that time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 17, at 2:00 o'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, Wednesday, May 17, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

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