MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit Strangers

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome to the public galleries eight students from the Discovery Centre, with their teachers, Ms Margaret Taylor and Ms Paula King. These students are from the Districts of Harbour Main-Whitbourne, Trinity-Bay de Verde, Port de Grave and Placentia & St. Mary's. Their attendance here today is part of their curriculum in English Class 1101.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are very pleased as well to welcome a delegation of volunteer firefighters from the Riverhead Volunteer Fire Department, the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. We are welcoming Alan Lee, Gerald Lee, Thomas Lee, George Whalen, Stephen Critch, Billy Squires and Earl Kielly.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I also notice in the gallery the Mayor of Corner Brook, Mayor Charles Pender.

Welcome, Mayor Pender.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have members statements as follows: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse Au Clair; the hon. the Member for Topsail; the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cheryl Grandy of Garnish. Cheryl is one of 700 students across Canada to receive a 2006-2007 Canadian Millennium Excellence Award, and she is one of thirteen in this Province.

The Millennium Excellence Award seeks to recognize the leaders of today and tomorrow and emphasizes the importance of supporting their contributions to our country's future. Millennium Excellence Awards are not prizes for benchmarks achieved. They are investments in the development of exceptional individuals who will have long, productive careers and whose accomplishments will benefit Canada as a whole.

The award is given by the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation and valued at $4,000. The foundation is a private, independent organization created by an act in Parliament in 1998. It encourages Canadian students to strive for excellence and pursue their post-secondary studies.

Cheryl is presently in her last year of the Office Administration Program at the College of the North Atlantic in Burin. She is the daughter of Clifford and Darlene Grandy of Garnish.

Other winners include: Holly Baker, Sarah Carter, Robin Clouston, Leslie Hewitt, Ashley Kapoor, Susan Gale and Stephen Woodworth, who listed their addresses as St. John's; Curtis Budden and Stacey Parsons of Mount Pearl; Susannah Pilgrim of Corner Brook; Susan Ryan of Marysvale; Danielle Walters of Port aux Basques, and Waylon Wiseman of Kippens.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Cheryl and the other winners and wishing them well in all future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the volunteer fire brigades of the Towns of Riverhead and Placentia.

On September 6, I attended an awards ceremony in Riverhead and was pleased to present thirty-year service awards to firefighters: Allan Lee, Thomas Lee, Gerald Lee, George Whelan and Stephen Critch. A twenty-year service award was presented to Chief Billy Squires and a ten-year service award went to Kevin Squires and Jerome Fagan.

The Riverhead Fire Department serves the communities of Riverhead, Mall Bay, St. Mary's, Point la Haye and the Gaskiers. It is a very well trained, very active and vibrant brigade under the leadership of Chief Squires and an executive led by Earl Kieley.

On November 25, Mr. Speaker, I attended the annual firefighter's ball in Placentia and was honoured to present twenty-five year awards to: Valentine Careen, Lorne Collins, Frank Coombs, and James O'Keefe, and a twenty-year service award to Raymond Roche.

The Placentia Fire Department is an amalgamation of three separate brigades - Placentia, Dunville and Freshwater - which came about in 1992 when these towns amalgamated. It is an exemplary brigade under Chief Wayne Power, and it is a shining example and a model of regionalization and amalgamation in this Province. After fourteen years of growing pains, the town has now turned the sod for a Central Fire Department in Freshwater.

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of these two fire brigades of Riverhead and Placentia epitomize what volunteerism and community involvement is all about.

I ask this hon. House today to join me in congratulating the firefighters of the Fire Departments of Riverhead and Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate three women from Newfoundland and Labrador who have achieved excellence in the field of nursing.

I want to congratulate Kathy Fitzgerald, Margaret Hackett and Alice Gaudine who were recognized with Awards of Excellence in Nursing at the annual meeting of the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador in October.

Mr. Speaker, all recipients were nominated by peers and selected through a rigorous peer review process.

Kathy Fitzgerald, who is an RN, BN, received the Award for Excellence in Nursing Practice. Fitzgerald is the Patient Care Co-ordinator at the Dr. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre in the Cancer Care Program of Eastern Health. She is described as "the epitome of professional nursing" - a very caring and compassionate nurse who continually goes beyond and above what is expected of her by her patients. She is also recognized for her leadership in the development of oncology nursing practice in the Province.

Margaret Hackett, who is an RN, BScN, MScN (Applied), received the Award for Excellence in Nursing Education. Hackett is an associate professor at Memorial University School of Nursing. Throughout her twenty-eight year career, she has been committed to improving the quality of nursing education in the Province and at the national level. Students describe the high quality of her teaching and consistently give the highest ratings for her teaching ability.

Alice Gaudine, who is an RN, MScN (Applied), PhD, received the Award of Excellence in Nursing Research. Gaudine is an associate professor at Memorial University School of Nursing. She is an internationally recognized researcher in the area of organizational behaviour, ethics and health interventions. She has an impressive record of research and is described as being one of the top ranking nurse researchers in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in this House to join with me in congratulating these three women: Kathy Fitzgerald, Margaret Hackett and Alice Gaudine, who were recognized with Awards of Excellence in Nursing from the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the students, teachers and parents of Holy Spirit High School for the recent completion of an environmental initiative on the school grounds titled: The Frog Pond Ecological Restoration Project.

Mr. Speaker, this project is the restoration and creation of a wildlife habitat onsite. It provides tremendous opportunities for learning experiences by students in Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science and Environmental Science. This project also provided a wonderful opportunity to let students themselves take a leadership role in the project, thus giving them ownership of the grounds and the newly created park.

The key aspects of the Frog Pond design are its wetland and bios wale areas that together comprise an innovative ecological process using natural means and native plants. Besides adding natural beauty to the area, the re-graded and vegetated stream and pools provide new habitats for birds and mammals, and improves water quality before it enters the pond and the Manuels River. Access to the pond's edge is provided through a section of boardwalk with lookouts, footbridges and granular walks.

Planting throughout the site consists of hardy native plant material. Plants were used to enhance wildlife habitats, create favorable microclimates and screen views to and from the site. Initial work began in 2003 and concluded in 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the students, teachers, parents, the school council and the principal of Holy Spirit High School, Mr Scott Crocker, on the completion of the Ecological Restoration Project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate and acknowledge the Memorial University Power Cheerleading Girls. They claimed the top spot for the second year in a row at the 2006 Power Cheerleading Athletics and Open National Championships held in Brampton, Ontario, this past weekend.

The team, consisting of thirty-three girls from all over this Province, including the District of Humber Valley, competed and earned the top prize at the Powerade Center. The talent and dedication demonstrated by these young ladies was absolutely phenomenal. I was also like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate their coaches, Angela Burke and Kerry Hart. These ladies represented our Province well, and we are very proud of them.

I would ask that all members rise with me today to congratulate the MUN Power Cheerleaders on their impressive repeat victory. This truly is quite an accomplishment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell honourable members about an initiative the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is undertaking to improve the economy of our Province.

Over the last number of years, we have helped form a number of business networks in Newfoundland and Labrador in which the goal has been economy of scale and the pursuit of new markets.

On the Northern Peninsula, for example, we have helped twelve companies form a business network and last year helped them travel to Greenland, and this year to New Brunswick, where there exists, in Greenland, a housing shortage and a lack of skilled people to build them.

As a result of that visit, three of the companies, which are all in woods and construction related industries, have formed a consortium to build prefab modular houses in Newfoundland and Labrador to be shipped to Greenland.

Further south, in the Stephenville-Corner Brook area, the metal fabrication industry was looking for new opportunities and new markets. So we helped six metal fabricators form a business network in that area.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Alberta metal fabricators are stretched to capacity and a market exists for exporting metal products to Alberta. A transportation study was carried out, funded by our department, as well as a capacity study, funded by our department, to see if it was feasible to manufacture and send goods to Alberta, and, Mr. Speaker, it is. Next month, network representatives will travel to Alberta to look for new clients.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add, that we are working on identifying opportunities in Alberta for metal fabrication companies all throughout the Province, and will lead a further mission to the buyer-sellers forum in Calgary in March.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has a long history of co-operatives. Since February, we have helped form four business co-operatives: a three farm co-operative in Labrador; a three farm co-operative in Robinsons; a Province-wide, fourteen member blueberry co-operative, and a six member e-business co-operative on the Baccalieu Trail. These co-operatives allow for lower costs through sharing of equipment and increased marketing opportunities.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, when these companies become successful, and I have no doubt that they will, they will need financial help. One source is from people called angel investors, sponsors with deep pockets. To this end, we have invested $40,000 in the St. John's Board of Trade's Angel Network. The Board will bring companies and potential investors together, including companies in rural parts of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, business networks are part of our broad array of tools to help business. Other tools include our Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Fund, the Business and Market Development Program and our new Commercialization Program. With these tools, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is helping grow the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement today.

One aspect of the statement I found really interesting and that is the one about trying to find, I guess, exporting opportunities for metal fabricators here in this Province and going and looking to Alberta for that. I do not know if the minister realizes but almost everything required for metal fabrication for an oil rig must be blasted, specialized, coated and/or galvanized. The problem we have in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no coating or galvanizing facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, which makes us less competitive.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: That is true. So, if you do not have this kind of facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, but you have the same thing in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, then we are going to be much less competitive. So I would encourage the minister to, in fact, look at putting such a facility - working with the local industry - in this Province.

I would also encourage the minister to look other than just in the Stephenville, Corner Brook area. I know on the Burin Peninsula there are metal fabricators and I know that one local businessman, in particular, spent his own money to advertise for ten days in the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun with no response, looking for opportunities for metal fabrication. So, I would encourage the minister to look beyond the Stephenville, Corner Brook area and to expand into other areas of this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would say, Mr. Speaker, as well, that we are very pleased government is involved in the co-operatives because in rural parts of this Province co-operatives are the way to go, for a whole lot of reasons that make economic sense.

I would also encourage the member, as the previous speaker said, Mr. Speaker, to look to other areas. In Labrador, for an example, there are several fabrication shops and the transportation system from Labrador to mainland Canada is much more efficient than it is from the Island portion of the Province; not that the work cannot be done here but it should not be restricted to here when opportunities are available to be explored in regions of Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Nunatsiavut Government on its first anniversary as a new government in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, it was two years ago yesterday that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement legislation was ratified in this House, and approximately one year ago that the Nunatsiavut Government was created.

The first year of self-government has been a challenging one for all concerned but great progress has been made.

Following the creation of the Nunatsiavut Government, they went about the task of putting in place the legislation and structures to operate as a new government.

On October 4, 2006, the Nunatsiavut Government held its first general election for Nunatsiavut Assembly members. The election resulted in the selection of eight ordinary members representing Labrador Inuit in the Nunatsiavut Assembly. On October 16 of this year, Mr. Speaker, the members of the new Legislature were sworn in. Also, sworn in was Mr. Todd Broomfield, the first elected Speaker of the Nunatsiavut Assembly.

As well, Inuit Community Governments have been put in place to replace the municipal governments in Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Rigolet and Postville. Our government is now working to transfer Crown lands to the Inuit Community Governments.

An implementation committee has been put in place to oversee the implementation of the agreement. A fisheries board, wildlife and plants management board and a regional planning authority will commence operations in 2007.

The fisheries board and wildlife and plants board will give advice on the management of natural resources in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

The regional planning authority will develop a Land Use Plan for Labrador Inuit lands over the course of the next three years. The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, Mr. Speaker, provides for a new era of independence for Labrador Inuit.

The agreement also provided for the formal establishment of the Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve by the Government of Canada. This park consists of approximately 9,600 square kilometres. For almost thirty years the Inuit of Labrador worked toward achieving this agreement, along with their partners in the federal and provincial governments.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Nunatsiavut Government on a successful first year. Our government looks forward to continuing to have a positive working relationship with President William Andersen III and the Nunatsiavut Government on a go-forward basis well into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the minister: nakummek. Thank you for an advanced copy of your statement. Minister, it is a great statement you made here today.

Also, minister, there is more than politics involved when you come to this type of work. I want to thank you for the work you carried on when your government took over in 2003 to finish the job that we had started. Again, to you minister, thank you for the work you have done.

No doubt, Minister, it was a long time coming, over thirty years. These people will move forward to build a better future for themselves, for their children, and for the Inuit of Labrador.

Minister, I would ask you, I would plead with you, in your role - yes, there are a lot of things they have to overcome - I ask you, as the minister who holds the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs, to stick with them and to do whatever you can to make this Land Claims Agreement the way it is supposed to be, and that it to benefit Inuit people on the North Coast of Labrador.

Nakumnek, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We, too, would like to join in congratulating all of those elected in the Nunatsiavut Government and wish them well in the years to come. After thirty years of struggle, I think that speaks to the determination and fortitude of the Inuit people. I am sure that same determination and fortitude will make them work hard to achieve things that seemed impossible a few years ago, as they go forward into the future. For many areas, they will be masters of their own destiny.

We certainly wish them well and offer them encouragement and support in any way that we can.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite all Members of the House of Assembly, government employees and their families, and the general public, to the annual Christmas Lights Across Canada ceremony this evening. It will take place in the main lobby of the East Block of Confederation Building at 6:15 p.m.

Christmas Lights Across Canada has become a tradition here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a national celebration in which the national and provincial capitals turn on their Christmas lights on the same day. Being the most easterly Province, we are usually the first to turn our Christmas lights on each year.

Mr. Speaker, this event was launched in 1986 by the National Capital Commission and has been held in this Province since 1987. This year's display includes approximately 51,000 lights, six billboards depicting Christmas scenes, and thirteen trees with white lights symbolizing our thirteen provinces and territories. The large main tree, which stands at twenty-five feet tall, came from the Argentia area and will contain multi-coloured lights as a symbol of diversity of our nation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: The purpose of this ceremony is to instill a sense of pride and unity among Canadians, and I urge residents in the area to come by the Confederation Building and join us in this celebration.

Mr. Speaker, the ceremony kicks off with a selection of Christmas carols by the St. Andrew's Elementary School Choir, followed by holiday music performed by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Band. It is my pleasure to throw the switch this year in front of Confederation Building at approximately 6:45 p.m.

Our Master of Ceremonies this evening will be Ms Shelley Neville of Spirit of Newfoundland, and refreshments will be available at the end of the event.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to join us at the Confederation Building to celebrate the beginning of the holiday season.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy, and the spirit must be hitting me because I am going to be kind today when it comes with this Ministerial Statement.

It is a time for all of us to reflect and to be thankful for everything that we have in the holiday season, and I encourage all members and all people in the Province to remember the people who are less fortunate, and the groups helping out with the food banks across the Province.

Also, Minister, in the statement it says, "The purpose of this ceremony is to instill a sense of pride and unity...." Let none of us forget our brave men and women who are serving overseas to make sure that we can celebrate this type of event in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed all across Canada, because these men and women are making the great sacrifice, but also they are being away from their families during this Christmastime so we all should remember them and reflect upon them.

Also, I say to all members and to the people of the Province, let's not forget the people who are in our institutions, who cannot get out. If you have a bit of spare time, go and visit them, because this is the time of Christmas and they do remember Christmas - their Christmas. If we can share the joy, it is much better to share it with someone who has the opportunity to share it with someone outside who does not have family here.

So, Minister, enjoy it. To all members, enjoy the Christmas season. This is what it is all about, to reflect on our family and our friends, and reflect on everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, the festive season has not quite arrived yet.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

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

I say to the minister that this afternoon will not be the first time that he sets off a spark around this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: This is a very nice ceremony. It is very important, and it is a fun time for all of the staff and their families to come this evening and watch as the light-up takes place. It is a fun event.

I say to the minister, I would encourage them in future years to use energy-efficient bulbs to set an example to the people of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fibre optic.

MR. R. COLLINS: Well, I was going to get to that later. I hazard to use the words, but I would encourage you next year to probably get a fibre optic tree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, this is a nice occasion and we are sure that it will go according to plan and that people will enjoy the ceremony this evening, as they have in years past.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development stated there was no need for financial information from the three companies involved in the fibre optic deal because he said that EWA, Electronic Warfare Associates, did not need that type of information from Rogers, Persona, and MTS Allstream to determine the value of a piece of fibre optic cable.

I ask the minister: Do you feel it appropriate to give $15 million to private sector companies without doing a financial analysis to determine whether or not these companies involved could cover their commitments in the deal, or whether or not they even needed the $15 million to continue ahead with this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not say there was no requirement or no need for financial information. What I said was that the financial analysis of the fibre optic investment that was required could be gotten from the marketplace to determine if we were getting a $52 million piece of infrastructure, if we were going to have what we require in order to get our $15 million worth of value out of it.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is, two of these three companies are publicly traded. They are also evaluated by the CRTC. If there was any problem with the solvency of the companies, the CRTC would pick up on that. Furthermore, I also said that Persona have indicated, have told us - and I have said this publicly on many occasions, inside and outside this House - they have agreed to provide us with the financial information, and they have agreed to post a performance bond to cover the full cost of the project.

That is it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister might not think it is necessary to know the financial shape of a company that we are going to give $15 million to but I think the general public deserve an answer to that, by the way.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province are investing 30 per cent of the total cost of this project, yet we are getting no equity position. Instead, these companies who are investing less are getting more of the potential benefits. The Premier constantly calls for an equity position in our offshore and the Lower Churchill, yet he is throwing $15 million at this project with no equity stake.

I ask the minister, or the Premier: Why are these companies getting fibre strands and profit when the people of the Province are only getting fibre strands with no profits, even though the minister himself has admitted both publicly and in this House that he cannot even tell us how many fibre strands we are getting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the difference between assets and equity, obviously. He does not understand the difference between investments and equity and assets and all of that stuff.

The fact of the matter is, the Premier has called for an equity position in our oil field development. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the oil companies want to give us ownership of the structures, if they want to give us ownership of the oil tankers, if they want to give us ownership of the refineries that they are going to put this through, maybe we might reconsider. I do not know. It is not for me to say. The fact of the matter is, our $15 million will buy us a specific number of strands. When the legal documentation has been finalized it will be divulged to everybody, and it will be divulged to the Auditor General as required by the Auditor General. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, these are private companies and there are certain commercial pieces of information that cannot be released until all the legal documentation has been concluded.

However, $15 million buys us a certain number of strands that EWA has told us we have to have and we will have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say that I have been asking the financial guru over there for the past four weeks questions on this and I have not been getting any answers. Let's try again.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that there are so many concerns that have been raised about this issue, the fact that we do not know how many fibre strands we are going to be getting, the fact that we do not know how much money these individual companies are investing, the fact that we do not know why government policy was not followed with respect to an RFP or a tender, the fact that we do not know what was contained in the controversial report or assessment done by the Department of Finance, I ask the minister or the Premier: Will you give a commitment today that no money will be released or invested in this project until the Auditor General completes his report and gives a determination as to whether or not this project passed the smell test?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, the money is not even budgeted yet, so it is at least April before we can even start to flow any funds. I am reasonably confident, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General will have done his assessment prior to that. There have been, I believe, discussions between the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP and our Government House Leader with the Auditor General on this evaluation. We have identified funds, as per the request of the Auditor General, to carry out the assessment that he is going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - on behalf of the school children of Newfoundland and Labrador, because I understand he was a teacher before he got into politics, thank you for leaving the classroom, because if he was half as bad as a teacher as he is as a learner then God help the students that he had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is asking for co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General has committed to doing the review of the fibre optic deal. He says he can, and will, have this review done by October or sooner.

I ask the minister, or the Premier: Why don't you commit right now, to the public of this Province, not to spend any money on this project until he finishes his report? What is the point of asking the Auditor General to do this report if the money is going to be already spent?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to say this: No, I will not make that commitment. The fact of the matter is, we have a budget process to go through. This infrastructure has to be built, Mr. Speaker, based on the analysis that we have done, and the people we have contracted to do it. I am absolutely confident, as are all of my colleagues, the Cabinet, the caucus, we take confidence in the advice of Memorial University, the College of the North Atlantic, Newfoundland Association of Technology Industries, the Board of Trade, St. John's City Council, the people who are involved with the telecommunications industry, the people who are involved with the research industry, that we have made an appropriate investment and when the Auditor Genera l renders his report on it, we will be vindicated, Mr. Speaker. We will be vindicated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the people out there wonder why we are asking questions day after day, it is because of the comments the minister makes. Just then he said that no money would flow until April and then in the second sentence he said people have already been contracted to do the work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Now, I ask the minister to stand here today and give us the commitment that the work will not proceed until after the Auditor General does his report. Because, what is the point of asking the Auditor General to do the review if the money is going to be already spent? Are you or the Premier going to pay back the money if the Auditor General comes out and says it should not have gone ahead?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has to get his facts straight. I did not say that contracts had been let. I did not say that we have made any financial commitment. We are, under the Financial Administration Act, not allowed to make a financial commitment until we have had Cabinet approval and until the appropriate budgetary line items have been passed in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Now, this infrastructure will start to be laid some time this summer, I would expect - late summer or early fall, I am not sure of the exact time lines right now - but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we are going to proceed with this project. We are going to allow the Auditor General to proceed with his work, and at the end of the day I have absolutely no reason to believe that there will be anything found untoward or wrong with this. The Auditor General will prove everything that I have said in this House over the past three weeks and will prove the Leader of the Opposition wrong once again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, over the last month, the Premier's excessive and lavish spending has been revealed. Now we learn to date that the government has spent $1.2 million to launch this absurd new brand of a stylized pitcher plant.

I ask the Minister of Business: Was there a tender call for this contract or was it sole-sourced?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, the brand signature is a strategic long-term investment in the future of this Province. That is exactly what it was. As a matter of fact, we went through a process, Mr. Speaker, that revealed forty-three different versions of our government logo out there.

I can see the shock on your face, Mr. Speaker, in regard to that, to be honest with you, because I am sure you did not know that, being impartial to the cause, but forty-three different ones.

Certainly, we did go through the proper process. There was a little over $1 million spent in regard to the production and the research that went into the development of that brand, and then there was a further $40,000 that went into the actual signage, and that was a part of the implementation of it. We did go through the proper process, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the minister just said they went through the proper process, so I will ask again: Was there a tender called for this contract or was it sole-sourced?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, absolutely, a tender was called in regard to it, and it was awarded to an agency of record who helped us all the way along in regard to doing that. We followed the proper process in regard to choosing that. Several agencies of record came forward on that process, and certainly the agency of record was awarded and they did an absolutely fabulous job in regard to that. We will keep implementing it right across government and government agencies, both nationally and internationally as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he will undertake to table immediately who tendered and if he would, in fact, make all that information available to the House as soon as possible?

Mr. Speaker, $15 million for Persona, $200,000 for one night of entertainment for visiting Premiers, and $1.2 million to be branded. For anyone who drives past this building, they cannot help but see a sign made of two six by six posts, two sheets of plywood, with a pitcher plant on it.

I ask the Minister of Business: Can you confirm that sign cost the taxpayers of this Province more than $20,000?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are two signs that are a part of the implementation. Certainly, the government has looked at this in regard to fiscal responsibility. The implementation of the new brand across government departments will happen over a two-year period of time over all departments, where we can absorb it as things and inventories run out. Certainly, we will follow that process and follow it to the fullest.

There were two signs in question in regard to the implementation of it, and the total cost was $40,000, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Forty thousand dollars for two signs at a time when we have food banks stretched to the limit, with more people than ever using food banks in this Province, and 9,000 people lining up looking for work in Alberta; $65,000 for a glossy pamphlet about the pitcher plant that was delivered to every household in this Province; another $285,000 was spent on the advertisement that we see on TV, and that does not include the cost of producing the ad; another $30,000 has been spent on people going to see a show in the theatres in St. John's where the ad is playing. Ninety-five per cent of the theatres are in St. John's. Half a million dollars has been spent on advertising alone.

I ask the Minister of Business: Will there be more money spent on advertising, and will he tell us just how much?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the course of action now is to implement the brand across government departments. That will be done over a two-year period, and it will be absorbed by each department as we go, as their inventories run out.

I will tell you something else, Mr. Speaker: We will get value for every dollar, the $1 million-plus, in regard to what we have done in regard to the brand. We found that there were forty-three different versions of that logo out there, that was left from the previous government. When you have forty-three versions of a logo out there, you have inconsistency and certainly you have confusion in the way this Province is viewed by the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: I will tell you something else, what we did not do: We did not spend $181,000 to Bristol on an ad campaign for a project that did not exist in the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what we did not do. We did not flick that money out the window.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker, you did not spend $183,000; you spent $1.2 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we all know how this Premier likes to share taxpayers' money with his buddies. We have a fibre optic cable here, a construction contract there, and advertising contracts everywhere.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm that, while many serious problems go unaddressed in this Province, even more money will be spent on the brand since the $1.2 million does not even include changing the signs on government vehicles, on government buildings, or even on licence plates? - and the list goes on and on. What will that cost the taxpayers of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, everything, to be honest with you, that this government does is done in a fiscally responsible manner. We have done that since 2003, once elected, as what was shown in the 2004 Budget, what was shown in the 2005 Budget, and what was shown in the 2006 Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: We do everything in a fiscally responsible manner. Over two years the brand will be implemented across government departments as inventories run out. That is fiscally responsible.

Listen to the Opposition here talking about the monies that are spent, just like they never spent anything on anything themselves in regard to the Juno Awards or in regard to the Millennium celebrations - $1.2 million. You know, $1.2 million was invested in the Millennium celebrations and, absolutely, it was probably a good investment. Who played at that? Great Big Sea, for a cost of $165,000, but am I saying it is a bad investment? No, it is not; it is a good investment, absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the numbers still do not add up to $1.2 million for a pitcher plant that nobody can tell what it is. Rather than a symbol of pride as a people, this brand is yet another symbol of how government wastes taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, while we are being branded, we have serious needs in this Province: food banks that are stretched to the limit; people who cannot get drugs they desperately need; and people who are lining up, being forced to go to work in Alberta.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm that he and the Premier wasted another $40,000 in taxpayers' money at a party where they introduced the Brand to invited guests?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, no, I would never, ever say such a thing. As a matter of fact, I view, and the business world views, the Brand as a very strategic investment of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The hon. member must be detached from the total population of Newfoundland because I have gone across this Province on, I do not know how many speaking engagements, and I have been approached by the Chambers of Commerce, the Boards of Trade, both here in St. John's, various other stakeholders, the public in general, and each and everyone of them, to be honest with you, understands the need of a Brand, understands that we have to be able to position this Province in a strategic manner nationally, internationally and globally. That is what this is all about. We will show at the end of the day that every dollar was of value, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would undertake to table the tendered documents in the next sitting of the House?

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

MR. O'BRIEN: The tender is public. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Public tender is public. Certainly, everything is subject to an ATIP or whatever you want. You got it, so just make that request.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume the Minister of Business just undertook to provide that documentation.

Mr. Speaker, we were given a bunch of questions, or a bunch of information, yesterday concerning the Bull Arm Site Corporation by the Minister of Natural Resources. These are the documents that were tabled. My first question is concerning the batch, I should say, rather than the couple of pages that I was given. This bunch of documents I am holding here is, in fact, the tender documents for the Bull Arm Site Corporation security building that was prepared by Sheppards, Green and Acres Limited, an engineering consulting firm. Now this, of course, went in the garbage once the first contract was cancelled.

I am wondering if the minister would undertake to tell us - and table here the information before the House closes next week, and preferably Monday, if possible - what it cost to have these documents prepared -

MR. REID: By the engineers.

MR. PARSONS: - by the engineers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not have any problem in providing that information to the House.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, I appreciate that.

Minister, we had an issue here of tendering versus request for proposals. We know, of course, that the public tender was cancelled on the Bull Arm site and we ended up with a request for proposals situation. It was my understanding that in both the tendered situation and in request for proposals that when you submit your bid, or your proposal, it gets stamped when it is received and submitted.

Now, I have the copies here that you provided yesterday from the three persons who were asked to submit proposals - by the way, I confirmed with the Works and Transportation officials and the Auditor General today that, that is indeed a protocol and a requirement, that you time, date and stamp these documents, but the ones I was provided with yesterday have no such stamp.

I am wondering if you could explain, or have Ms Cleary explain, why that was not done in this case, or if it was as a result of the photocopying or so on, that it is not on here? I would certainly appreciate it. This is, again, another example where the documentation submitted does not comply with government policy, and I would like to know why it did not comply.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will endeavour to find the answers to those questions.

Mr. Speaker, I have been providing information in this House since last Wednesday with regard to the security shed contract. I have maintained, and still maintain, that everything was done within the Public Tender Act, although there were two oversights, which we take very seriously. Because of the uncovering of those two oversights, I instructed my staff to review all recent contracts with the Bull Arm Corporation. As a result of that review, I have found an instance of where work was let at the site and the proper process was not followed, although, I have determined, to my satisfaction, that there was no intentional wrongdoing or political interference. This government is committed to transparency, accountability, openness, and we are fully committed to the Public Tender Act. As a result of the concerns that have been raised on this piece of work, I have asked for and received Ms Cleary's resignation.

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

MR. PARSONS: I had a further question, in fact, directed to the minister in that regard, and my next question was going to be to the fact that Ms Cleary was the former Chair of the Workers' Compensation, and my submission would have been that as Chair she brought in this core certification piece and enforced it as Chair of the Workers' Compensation. Certainly, any explanation by her that she overlooked it in this case was not acceptable and was incompetence, and I appreciate the minister taking action on this file in that regard.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

It has been a long concern in Labrador West, and Labrador in general, particularly from the communities of Labrador City and Wabush, regarding the Upper Churchill power contract and the benefits that are flowing to this Province. A few months ago the minister committed to providing a legal opinion as to section 92(a) of the constitutional amendment that was made in 1983 that would allow for direct taxes to be placed upon export power.

I wonder if the minister could provide us with an update as to the status of that opinion and whether or not there has been one sought and one determined?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the hon. member knows, the civil division of the Department of Justice is a law firm for the government - lawyers for the government. Lawyers in the civil division are engaged with all government departments in providing legal advice from time to time, which the various heads of departments can use in conducting their negotiations with people that they have to negotiate with.

We have a number of legal opinions on the issue of 92(a). Those opinions are in the process of being reviewed by lawyers for the department. When we have the results of that review, the information will be provided to the appropriate minister to deal with as she deems appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My next question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

I say to the minister, that the cost of airline travel out of Labrador these days is prohibiting many people from being able to fly. Last week, the Province of Quebec released an announcement on Radio Canada stating that they have introduced a subsidy program to residents of their province who live in northern and isolated areas up to 30 per cent of the cost of travel. I also noticed, Mr. Speaker, that a couple of weeks ago the minister released a press release on the Labrador transportation plan consultation document.

I wonder if the minister can provide assurances to the people in Labrador that the final product of this document, of this study for transportation in Labrador, will contain a provision that will subsidize air travel for residents who depend on it in order to travel?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the Member for Labrador West for his question.

I say to the member, this is certainly something I am presently looking at, what Quebec is doing, and reviewing their policies on how they do things over there. I hope that after we review that, and as we move forward with the transportation plan, that some of these issues will be addressed.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that, although the Member for Labrador West raises the issue about high air fares in Labrador, there is nothing, really, that the Department of Transportation and Works can do regarding the high air fares, but one of the issues that we are dealing with, with my colleague, the Minister of Health, is the bigger issue in Labrador, which is medical travel for patients coming out of Labrador, and that is the priority for me as the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Minister of Natural Resources.

In this House yesterday, when I asked the minister - and it is quoted on page 2037 of yesterday's Hansard proceedings - when I was asking questions, the comment of the minister was, "I say, Mr. Speaker, I am ultimately responsible for what happens in this department, not Ms Cleary, and I am satisfied in terms of my investigations into this matter that there has been no impropriety. Ms Cleary removed herself once she realized that there would be the appearance of a conflict in terms of awarding the second number of bids."

I ask the minister: If you are responsible for your department, and this happened under your watch, why don't we have your resignation rather than the resignation of Ms Cleary?

You took responsibility. Do the honourable thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we are soon going to have to call the space between the government side of the House and the Opposition side of the House the road to Damascus, because there is a conversion that has happened from the journey from here to there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: It is too bad we didn't have some of that righteous indignation on this side when the Public Tender Act was corrupted and eroded every day. His inquiring mind wasn't at work on this side of the House.

The fact of the matter is, not adhering to the Public Tender Act is a legacy of those people over there, and what they are proposing now is politics over substance. I am responsible, and when I found that the Public Tender Act was not being adhered to, I took responsible action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, the environment has become one of the most important and contentious issues in the country. We were well on our way to making the Dog Hill a state-of-the-art site for the Avalon Region and possibly for Clarenville and the Burin Peninsula. The government has decided to abandon the site and continue to dump everything into Robin Hood Bay.

Why, Minister, are we not following the trend across the country and establishing a modern regional waste management site with full sorting and recycling at Dog Hill, rather than putting everything into garbage bags for Robin Hood Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, a question. I thank the member for his question.

Presently, the engineering consultants' reports are being finished on the Robin Hood Bay. That report will be finalized. They will be out very shortly, and then a decision will be made after that consultation is finished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, time for a very brief question.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The management established by the regional board on the advice of affected municipalities for regional management had agreed that no one municipality would have a majority of voting rights.

I ask the minister why he has gone against the wishes of the City of Mount Pearl, the Towns of Paradise, CBS, Holyrood, and other municipalities on the Avalon as far away as Conception Bay North, and allowed the City of St. John's to control the board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is an issue that I am certain my colleague from Municipal Affairs continues to work with. That is an issue that will be worked through, and a resolution will be found and a suitable site for the dump will be found, and the governance of that will be worked out over the coming months, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am pleased to table the Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the months of May, June, July, August, September and October, 2006.

Notices of Motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands there is another document to be tabled.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment of being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre of Health Information.

The current annual report provides an overview of key activities that occurred during the fiscal year 2005-2006.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods. (Bill 70)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, as per Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on Monday. Further, I move, as per Standing Order 11 - I give notice, I should say - that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m.

I give notice on both of these, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today on behalf of the people out in Lark Harbour and along Route 450 and Route 451 on the North and South Shore of the Bay of Islands, requesting that there be something done with the roads. I always say the first step to having something done with the roads is to meet with the person who is going to make the decision.

I know all of the councils, and I know that it is the third minister now that all the councils have written requesting a meeting to meet with the councils on the North and South Shore. This is going on four years now and they still cannot get a meeting. It is rather disturbing, when you have volunteers on the town councils in a certain area trying to meet with the minister for safety and major road concerns in the district and you cannot even get a meeting.

Mr. Speaker, the roads have deteriorated to the point where it is a health and safety issue, not just some kind of luxury of having a bit of pavement on the road. This year, just on the South Shore of the Bay of Islands, where the people of Lark Harbour drive up towards Corner Brook, there were two big rocks in the middle of the road and there were two accidents. The minister is well aware of it because I wrote, myself, personally, and asked for compensation for the people because the rocks were in the middle of the rock.

A lot of the reasons why rocks are there is because the gabion baskets that were installed years back have been broken, and it is because of the cut in the maintenance money from the Department of Transportation and Works, all across the Province, and in the Bay of Islands itself, that these gabion baskets are not working properly. Even on the back of the gabion baskets - and there is a large stretch of gabion baskets on the South Shore of the Bay of Islands - the rock builds up to the point that when anything else comes down over the hill it would just roll over the top.

I have asked the minister - this is the third minister. I asked the Minister of Fisheries, who was the minister. I asked the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who was the minister. Now I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works to at least go out and meet with the town councils and not do what the minister did the last time when we had the major concern in McIvers: Drive out on a Sunday morning, drop off at a local convenience store, ask the clerk would she mind calling around to see if there was a councillor around in the town who could show him where the problem was.

That shows a complete disservice to the volunteers who are working on the councils on the Bay of Islands.

The people in Lark Harbour have written this petition. They are asking for some assistance, I have been asking for some assistance, and here we see the Minister of Justice and Attorney General getting $450,000 to open up some sub-developments up on Massey Drive which has nothing to do with any road work in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely none! We see the mayor out on Massey Drive saying it is going to open up sub-developments for us. That is another good one for the Auditor General, I would assume.

Here are the people on the South Shore of the Bay of Island who cannot get gabion baskets fixed. They cannot get any maintenance on the roads, whatsoever. The signs themselves are to the point where they are deteriorating, to give what road conditions are in place. We had to force to get the lines painted in the Bay of Islands. Here we are, once again, going back to this government - we had one minister saying there is too much money being spent in the district and the Minister of Transportation and Works who was out now and said the Minister of Fisheries is wrong, that there wasn't enough ever spent in the district.

Mr. Speaker, I call up the minister to heed this petition and offer some assistance and provide safety for the people of the Bay of Islands.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words again about the unacceptable circumstances that exist on the South Coast of Newfoundland about the porta-potties.

The Minister of Transportation and Works, after me asking him here in this House on behalf of the people of Burgeo and Ramea to put some toilet facilities and waiting room facilities on the South Coast so that the users of the ferry service might avail of them, did come part way. I must say, on the road to what is reasonable, it is not very acceptable when you get two porta-potties propped up on two pieces of two-by-four in Burgeo and the same thing in Ramea, no water connected to them, no towels or anything inside, no heat in them. If you have to use the washroom just hope that it does not happen when it is cold outside because, basically, you are not getting to it.

I say to the minister: Thanks for what is there, but it is only a half-hearted measure on your part. I hope you consider this to be an emergency measure only and that before this year is out, not in 2007, not in 2008, but before the year 2006 is out, that we make some effort to put an acceptable facility in these two communities.

We have literally hundreds of users of the ferry service, and it is okay if you know someone in Burgeo or Ramea, or you happen to be on the boat, but God forbid if you get caught waiting for the boat, because there is nowhere for you to go, and that is the point we have been making here.

I have had calls from Ramea, I have had calls from Burgeo, someone saying: Well, Mr. Parsons, we hope you don't think that a couple of porta-potties is all we want down here. I assure the people of Ramea and Burgeo that this is not acceptable in the least. It is there as a short-term measure, until such time as we get some acceptable health and safety, proper facilities, in those communities so that the users of the ferry service and the tourists who come to our areas - for example, the Minister of Tourism and Aquaculture, I am sure he must be very pleased to know that people who visit our Province, and we are so proud to have them because they put so much money here -

MR. HICKEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to wait until he is recognized.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the last number of days I have heard the member opposite talk about the porta-potties. Let me say this to the people of Burgeo, it was he who requested the porta-potties on November 23. We delivered porta-potties. That is what the man requested. That is what we delivered, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes again the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection again from the Minister of Transportation and Works. I do not need him up here ranting and raving when I am in the middle of a petition. We would rather have his help and his assistance in getting a facility.

Now, I hope that what the minister just said is not what we can expect. Is he treating us and the people of the Southwest Coast as second-rate citizens? Because if that is what the minister thinks, that we are going to accept porta-potties when everybody else in this Province who has a ferry terminal, whether it is in Port aux Basques, or whether it is in Lewisporte, or in Cartwright or anywhere else, has suitable facilities, Fogo, for example, or anywhere else - all we are asking for is a basic, human, decent need. Porta-potties are not acceptable as a permanent long-term solution. We need something here that is a long-term solution, I say to the minister. Do not try to get up and say: Oh, you only asked for porta-potties, so that is all you are deserving of. It is irrelevant what I ask for. It is what is needed is what counts here, and people need proper facilities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that as per Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn today, Thursday, December 7, at 5:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn today, Thursday, December 7, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, with leave, first reading of Bill 70, An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods.

I am asking leave to do first reading so we can get the bill out when it is printed, whenever that may be.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods. (Bill 70)

It is the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce this bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods," carried. (Bill 70)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 70, An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 70 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods. (Bill 70)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 70 has now been read a first time. When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 70 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 61 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment." (Bill 61)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is certainly a pleasure to be bringing second reading of this bill to the House. It has received stakeholder support, Mr. Speaker. The bill has been thirty-five years without any upgrading. It has been in place for thirty-five years. The previous bill was, in fact, developed prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even being enacted. This is a very important piece of legislation. It will provide better rights for individuals. It will revise the eligibility criteria used to determine situations and individuals who would benefit under the authority of the act, and it would expand the range of interventions and services available.

Part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought about, beside the fact that it was in desperate need of upgrading after thirty-five years, was as a result of the report of the Luther inquiry into the deaths of Norman Reid and Darryl Power. I think it is important to recognize that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the new legislation will provide treatment and protection for persons suffering from severe mental disorder who are at risk of harming themselves or others, and it will protect the rights of individuals.

This bill will provide better rights of people who experience involuntary detention and treatment. It will allow for individuals to have an expectation from the health care system of what their rights are, of where they are being detained, and why, access to telephone and visitors. It will also provide for individuals to retain and instruct counsel, to have input into their own treatment, Mr. Speaker, and to have access to his or her representative or rights advisor.

Mr. Speaker, under the old act, individuals did not have the same rights that they do under this act, and one of the improvements is that there will be two separate assessments required, one of those by a psychiatrist to verify that an individual meets the needs and criteria of involuntary admission.

As well, to ensure the protection of rights of individuals, Mr. Speaker, there will be a review board, and a review of all involuntary hospital admissions of individuals held for more than sixty days will be mandatory. On top of that, an individual can seek a review at any time, even prior to the sixty days. Any decisions can be appealed through the Newfoundland Supreme Court.

Another aspect of the act, Mr. Speaker, is community treatment orders that involve mandatory treatment and care in the community under the supervision of a treating psychiatrist and other professionals. It will apply to a small number of individuals, but it will allow people to live in the community with supports.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the new act. I have spoken with the Opposition critic for health, as well as the Leader of the NDP, just prior to the House opening this afternoon. I will say that I do have provincial-territorial-federal ministers' meetings in New Brunswick this afternoon so I have asked both the Leader of the Opposition and the health critic, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if they were okay with the bill. I think they both have some comments on the bill and will speak to second reading this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words with regard to Bill 61.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation that has come before the House of Assembly. An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment in Newfoundland and Labrador has not been, I do not think, as we would call it, overhauled in almost thirty years, or more than thirty years, and there was absolutely a need for this act to be rewritten and for it to reflect what the need is today for mental health services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to read through this bill and also to be briefed by the officials in the Department of Health on this particular bill and it is absolutely no doubt, if there was one purpose served by the Reid-Power inquiry, it was to ensure that there was legislation around mental health that would be reflective of what is needed in today's society.

I think that the recommendation in the Reid-Power inquiry, Mr. Speaker, does reflect and is reflected in a large portion of this bill.

I know that one of the more serious aspects that was recommended within the Reid-Power inquiry that was done in 2003 was as it pertained to RCMP officers or peace officers because, as you know, that was the issue here. One of the recommendations that was in this Reid inquiry stressed very importantly that peace officers should have appropriate training, not only in identifying individuals with mental health needs but also in identifying the proper conduct that they would need or how they would handle a patient of mental illness if they were disorderly, and ensure that they got the appropriate medical attention so that they would not be a danger to themselves or to anyone else.

Now I am not clear, and the minister can certainly explain to me, in the legislation, if it speaks to the training of these particular peace officers. I know that there are certain components of the bill in which training will be required in order to carry out the new legislation that the government is going to bring forward here, but I was not clear from the briefing session, and maybe the minister can tell me, if, in fact, the RCMP officers will be trained in the area of mental illness to the degree where they can identify and at least make the call for the supports that they need in dealing with mental health patients. I think that is a very important piece of all of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there are several parts of it that I would like to speak to in particular. As you know, the individuals who fall under this particular act are individuals out there in the Province who involuntary seek, or have someone on their behalf seek mental health services for them. I do not have to tell anyone in this House how mental health and mental illness can affect an individual, but it is more than the effect that it has on that individual, in many cases. It is also the effect that it has on family members, the stresses that they are under and that they go through, especially family members who want to seek medical services for a loved one who might be suffering from mental illness but the patient protests and do not want that service. That becomes very stressful in families and can certainly have a tremendous amount of affect upon the family, upon friends and upon the individual. I think it is important to recognize that mental illness does not just affect that individual, but it affects the family around them, the friends around them, the communities that they live in and so on. It is very important that even when there is a person who suffers from a mental illness, who does not voluntarily seek the help that they need, that someone would do so on their behalf. What this legislation does is it allows for protection of the rights of the individual, as well as the protection of society, ensuring that these individuals get the treatment that they want.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to one particular case that I think a lot of Members of the House of Assembly would be familiar with. You will probably remember it, it was just a year ago in this Legislature that I raised an issue with regard to a gentleman by the name of Wilfred Benson. Wilfred Benson was a gentleman who lived in a tent in the woods off Ruth Avenue in Mount Pearl. He was an individual who had been diagnosed as having a history of mental illness and depression. His family, who lived in Alberta, were very concerned for his health and welfare. At that time, I stood in the Legislature and asked the minister to intervene, to ensure that Mr. Benson would have the proper mental health treatment that he would require. At the time, the minister's hands were tied. He could not involuntarily force this individual into a treatment facility or to seek treatment of any kind. In fact, his response at the time was that this is a matter of choice and lifestyle for that individual; which was really hard, Mr. Speaker, to be able to accept as an answer, or to even want to accept as being a course of action in a case like this, when you know, in the month of December, that there is a mentally ill person living in a tent in the woods and not getting the treatment that they require.

Under the new legislation an individual like Wilfred Benson would have gotten some help, whereas a year ago he could not have. The reason is because the new legislation interprets the intervention process for mental health very differently. A year ago they would have looked at an individual like Wilfred Benson and said: Well, he is not an immediate threat to himself or to society and we do not see that he is immediately, therefore, we would not be able to take him in to give him any treatment, to hospitalize him, to have him see a counsellor, or any of those things. He would have been left to his own devices.

Today, Mr. Speaker, those same workers could look at a gentleman like Mr. Benson and say that because he is off his treatment and he is not getting the medications that he needs, there is a possibility that he could act up, and because of that acting up he could intentionally be a threat to himself or to someone else. Therefore, under the law and under the new legislation, they would be able to take this individual in for clinical services to ensure that they get the treatment they need, and that they become stabilized on their medication, and then, of course, to release them again into the community.

Madam Speaker, there are some significant changes here. I am going to talk about a few more of them as I go on, because I think it is important for people to understand how this new mental health act, in particular, works. First of all, included here is what they call rights and rights advisors. What that means is that -

Excuse me, Madam Speaker, I am having trouble hearing myself speak.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was talking about the rights and rights advisors, which is a new addition to the mental health services under this new legislation that the government is bringing forward. Basically, what that means is if a person is involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility for treatment, that they have the right to an advisor. That was not included under the old mental health legislation. What this advisor indeed would do is ensure that the patient know what their rights are, as being a part of a clinical treatment. They would make sure that they know that while they are being apprehended -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There seems to be several private conversations going on here. There is far too much noise in the House. The Chair cannot hear the speaker, and I think that the speaker herself is being distracted by the noise. I ask you to please keep order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a very important piece of legislation and I am somewhat surprised that hon. members are not certainly paying more attention to it, because it has been more than thirty years since we have had the amendments we needed in the Mental Health Act and unfortunately it had to come from some very tragic incidents in our Province which came out of the Reid-Power inquiry that was done in 2003.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, these individuals will now have an opportunity to know what their rights are, and there will be advisors provided to them upon request when they are involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution. I think that is very important because quite often these individuals, even when they are involuntary, are left to their own devices. I think it is important that they know what their actual rights are when they are being detained in a psychiatric facility.

Madam Speaker, the question that I have around these rights advisors is - they will be new positions that will be added by the government. What I would like to know is what the qualifications of a rights advisor would be. When I was in the formal briefing on this bill, I was not assured as to what the qualifications would be for a rights advisor, but I think it is very important that these individuals have a background or have the ability to be trained in human rights issues, ethics and codes, because that will probably be the most important and most fundamental component to their job in dealing with these mental health patients.

It is okay for them to have clinical backgrounds or social work backgrounds, but it is equally as important for them to have the kind of training and experience that is needed in dealing with human rights issues.

Madam Speaker, that is one part of the bill and I certainly have no problems with that piece of it, and having that done.

Now, there are also a couple of other sections here that I want to talk about for a minute, and that is with regard to the treatment of these individuals. Quite often individuals, even when they involuntarily seek mental health services, when they are released back to the community there has to be a follow-up piece. There has to be a way to bridge the gap between the institution and between the community, and I think the legislation is getting at that through the community treatment component of it; however, I do not think it goes far enough or will be far-reaching enough to actually do the kind of things that need to be done.

Let me just tell you a little bit about what community treatment will mean. It is a gap between the institution, when a person goes in who is bipolar, schizophrenic, in a deep depression, whatever the case may be, and they go in to a psychiatric hospital and they are treated, usually within a two-week period - and I think the statistics will show that most people, or the majority of them who are hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, are released within a two-week period. In fact, what they told me is that less than 10 per cent of those people who are hospitalized for psychiatric treatment ever stay beyond two weeks. They said about 10 per cent of them will stay for a period of up to eight weeks at a time.

When they are released into the community there need to be some measures put in place. In this particular legislation it is doing that, but it is doing it, I believe, in a way that it can only be enforced in urban areas throughout the Province. For example, if you were released under the community treatment program you would have a mediator who you would deal with. You would have a case management worker, who would either be a nurse or a social worker. You would have things looked after, like your housing and those kinds of amenities that you would need, which is all very important, I say, but I cannot see how this could work in the rural areas, simply because the resources will not be there.

It does not mean I do not support it because of that, because I do support it, and I think it is a very good concept and a great way to be able to allow these people to make an integration from a psychiatric institution back into the community, and it will work great in places like St. John's; however, it is still going to be difficult to enforce in rural areas.

You have to remember, when you talk about the Norman Reid situation, that was one of the key problems that was identified in that whole inquiry when it was being done, and that was the fact that when Mr. Reid was released back to his community from the psychiatric hospital, which happened on many, many occasions, he did not always have the supports that were required or the mitigation process that would go from coming out of a psychiatric hospital and going back to your home community. Now, as you know, Norman Reid lived in a rural outport community. He did not live in the St. John's area or in the Corner Brook area.

I want to read to you this letter that was actually in the Reid inquiry when it was done. This is a letter that was submitted as one of the exhibits, and I think it is important to read this because quite often when people are suffering from mental illness and mental health issues and they come out of a psychiatric hospital - they have been stabilized, they are under treatment, they go home and everything is supposed to be great - well, quite often they have so many issues to deal with in the home, and other things that they are forced to deal with, that very soon you see them off their scheduled medications again, and all of a sudden going into more problems than they had when they started, which is unfortunate.

In the Reid-Power inquiry, this was a letter that was submitted by a registered nurse who worked with Norman Reid. She said, in this letter - and this was right after he was released from the Waterford Hospital. He was sent home to his hometown community, a rural outport community, and these are the concerns that she had, that she had written and asked the department of social services, as an RN, to look at. She said: Norman's electricity was cut early in 1996 because he owed in excess of $500 to Newfoundland Light and Power. This certainly distracted from his already minimal quality of life. During the winter months especially, his health and safety was at risk and continues to be. His use of candles and lanterns are for light. He has an oil stove that rarely has enough oil to last for a month during the colder months, and the condition of the home itself is uninsulated. Presently, Norman's lack of intact footwear is a concern, and his only source of diversion at home is a battery-operated radio. As you probably know, Norman has no source of nurturing or encouragement, no job or involvement that could boost his self-esteem and keep him occupied. He is often shunned by his relatives and neighbours, and it is not a very positive social situation.

Now Norman Reid, who was a mental health patient at the Waterford Hospital, when he was released from hospital and sent home, this was the environment which he went home to live in to deal with his mental illness. Madam Speaker, it is very important to note that, because the reality is this, when you go home to a house where you have no electricity, where you cannot afford to keep heat in it, when you have no decent boots to wear on your feet and you have no social environment around you, no friends, no relatives, or whatever the case may be, and you have no support services, but you are a mental health patient, I do not think that is the kind of environment that people should be placed into when they are coming out of hospitals like this.

I am hoping that this legislation, through this new component that has been added, which is the community treatment orders, I am hoping that under this section and this new legislation that we can avoid situations like that of which Norman Reid had to face. That is, under this community gap, bridging the gap measure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - that social workers, mental health nurses, psychiatrists, and all of those collectively working together, will look at the kind of environment that this patient is being placed in. They will have case management workers who will work with them on a daily, weekly basis to deal with the challenges that they may have in their life. In addition to that, they will have a treatment program which could be followed up on, on a regular basis. That sounds like the perfect solution, and it is, if you live in St. John's or in Corner Brook. The problem is that, because the resource is not available in rural communities, it will be difficult for these programs to reach out into a lot of these rural communities that need them.

Madam Speaker, that is a concern that I have around that component of the bill. Again, it does not lessen, in any way, the impact of the bill. I am just suggesting that the government needs to take into consideration how they can extend that program and that service to as many people as possible in the Province who need it, because I think it is very important. You do not need to look far to find the information to back up the argument that I am making because it was all done here by Judge Luther when he undertook the work of the Reid-Power inquiry. He very explicitly detailed the information and the recommendations that needed to be incorporated into a new mental health act for the Province.

Now, Madam Speaker, I realize that in the last couple of years the government has added new money for mental health services in the Province. In fact, if I recollect appropriately, there were twelve new positions added for case management workers, they call it now. We used to call them mental health nurses, but it amounts to about the same thing. I also know that these case management workers have been placed in a number of hospitals throughout the Province. Actually, a couple of them in Labrador, one on the Northern Peninsula, I think it was Gander, Grand Falls, Clarenville, Burin, in a lot of these places, and it is important that this happened.

My fear, Madam Speaker, is this, the shortages of psychiatrists that we have in those same facilities. I know right now in Labrador there is no psychiatrist position. I know on the Northern Peninsula there is no psychiatrist position. I know in the Eastern Health Board area there is a shortage of psychiatrists. I do not know, maybe the minister can tell me, if on the West Coast of Newfoundland maybe there is a shortage of psychiatrists as well. It is a profession that has become increasingly hard to recruit people to, and especially in the rural or more outlying hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know it is not a problem that is relative just to our Province, but it has been somewhat of a national problem.

My concern is this - and I think this was outlined as well by the Schizophrenia Society and by the Newfoundland and Labrador Mental Health Association going into this, and the documentation is probably in this Reid-Power Inquiry as well. I think going into this, their concern was staffing, the availability of human resources to do the job which needs to be done in mental health services. That was one of the key things that they recommended and that they were concerned about. I think we need to add more mental health nurses, or case management workers - whatever you choose to call them these day - into our health care system.

I will give you an example. In my district, which covers hundreds of kilometres of geography to even isolated communities, we have one mental health nurse. While you might look at it and say it is for a population of 4,000 people, which is the norm or something like that, the geography that this individual has to cover makes it literally impossible to do their job. I have talked to them on a number of occasions and I say to them, although there is one position, simply because of the workload, the position changes a lot, people move on. They do not want to be burdened down with that workload or that large geography to service, so they move on to other positions. I have to say, government really needs to look at where they can strategically place more mental health nurses in regions like this.

The mental health nurse in Forteau has told me on occasion that his workload is so busy that it is almost impossible for him to have an intake of more clients; almost impossible. It is absolutely impossible for him to even consider travelling up the coast to the other communities outside of the Labrador Straits region and be able to do justice to the work that he needs to do there. It is nearly impossible for him to be able to do that. I think that is understandable, and that is not the only area of the Province. I just used that as an example. There are many more areas. I am not going to discuss every one of them but they are all very similar in terms of one mental health nurse serving a large population of people and not being able to handle the number of cases and the number of issues that are being brought forward to them in their professional positions.

I think the government has to look at that, and more serious a problem is what I have outlined with regard to psychiatry. You know, the mental health nurse is a good frontline individual who deals with people who are going through depression, or people who are going through other forms of mental illness, whether it be schizophrenia , bipolarizaztion or something else. Madam Speaker, you have to have psychiatrists. Right now, I know right across the Province there is a shortage of psychiatrists. I know in the whole Labrador region and all of the Northern Peninsula there is no psychiatrist, and the positions have been vacant for a long time.

I have had constituents tell me that they have asked them to do psychiatry counselling over the telephone. One lady who participated in that form of counselling told me she did it because she had no other forum but she did not find it as effective as being in an office or in a room with an actual psychiatrist and getting the kind of treatment that she needed. That is unfortunate. Today she has to travel from Labrador right down the Northern Peninsula to Corner Brook to actually get an appointment to see a psychiatrist, and only then if she is lucky enough to get an appointment in Corner Brook, because even there they have become very overstressed, I guess, with the amount of work on the West Coast of Newfoundland as well.

Madam Speaker, it is a serious problem. One in every five people in our society suffer from mental illness in one form or another. Eighty-five per cent of them voluntarily seek the help that they need, but there are 15 per cent of the population who do not. In that 15 per cent of the population there are a number of times - I think when we were briefed we were told there are 500 times a year - that someone is hospitalized involuntarily for mental illness. That is the seriousness and the magnitude of the numbers that you are actually dealing with.

I know myself, first-hand, that depression seems to be more common today than it used to be; but, you know, we live in a faster-paced society. We live in a society that is highly dependent upon technology. We live in a society that is overly competitive, and that often causes a tremendous amount of stress on people, but we also, Madam Speaker, live in a changing society, as many would have known it, in terms of out-migration, restructuring of the economy, and all of these factors which all play a part when it comes to depression.

I know people in my district in particular, but also in other small communities around the Province, but I am just going to talk about my district, for instance, because I know of this one case in particular where this family, who is at an aging level now, have hardly ever left the community. We grew up in isolation. We did not have roads. We did not have a way out every day. They raised their family in isolation. It is the lifestyle they knew. They hardly left the community, only to go in the back country to hunt, to fish, or to do something like that. Then, all of a sudden, you get the roads coming through. Then you get the fishery which starts to decline, and industry starts to change. Then you get your son, his wife and kids, who lived in the garden next to your house for the last twenty years, who decide to pack up and move to Fort McMurray. Believe me, it causes a tremendous amount of stress on these families. I have seen how it can affect them, and how they have become depressed.

I have a friend of mine who, most of her daughters had moved away and lived in various parts of the Island and she had two sons left at home. When the fishery closed, one of her sons and his family, his wife and kids, packed up and moved to Ontario. I saw her, for about three years, go through spurts of depression, being overly stressed, because of that loss in their lives, because of those changes in their lives. So, when you live in a society like we do today, where it is very fast-paced, highly technological, very competitive, it is only, I think, obvious that the level and the numbers of people who suffer from depression would be even more evident to us than even in previous years.

I think the need is there more now than ever to have the kind of mental health services in the Province to serve these people so that they have access to the treatments that they want. Whether that treatment would be through a mental health nurse, through a case management worker or through a psychiatrist, they certainly need to have the kind of help out there in the community that they require; because, you know, mental illness, unlike a lot of other illnesses, is a treatable one. Treatable in the form that, if you take your medication, if you follow the orders of the doctor, if you get proper counselling, if you follow up, you can function in society as any other person although you still suffer from a mental illness. I guess if there is a blessing when it comes to mental illness, that would be it, the fact that it is treatable and that it is not like some diseases which are critical and for which there are no treatments that are guaranteed to work. So, from that regard, I guess, it is good.

I have certainly dealt with a lot of people who suffer from mental illness, and I know the strains and stresses that it puts on them in their lives and also on their families. I know for many of them that I know, of course, they voluntarily sought treatment when they have needed it, and they have needed it on more than one occasion throughout their lives. In lots of cases there are some I know who have had to take treatment throughout most of their adult life but, you know, they have raised a family, they function, they have worked, and they have had a quality of life to the largest extent because they were able to get the services that they needed.

It is unfortunate that was not the case for people like Darryl Power and people like Norman Reid, but what I will say is that, because at the time the government chose to do a full inquiry and a full investigation into the circumstances and the death surrounding those two individuals, hopefully someone today and going forward will be served by the information and by the recommendations.

That is why lots of times when people say, you know, we can't do an inquiry around this or an investigation around that, there are a number of inquiries out there that have been done in the past that have proven to be very effective tools for creating legislation and for enacting legislation and programs in this Province. The Power-Reid inquiry is one such document that has allowed government and allowed the public to be able to strengthen the Mental Health Act to the point where it will assure a little bit more guarantees and a little bit more flexibility for the people who work in the mental health field. There is, in this legislation, the ability and the opportunity for nursing practitioners, for registered nurses, to expand upon their role and expand upon their education and their training as it pertains to mental health services and dealing with mental health patients in the Province.

There are some very positive pieces to this legislation. I have questions, as I have already outlined, around the training of the rights officers, around the training that would be provided to the RCMP officers, which I think is very critical when you look at the Reid-Power inquiry, especially critical to look at the components of training around the RCMP and the RNC officers.

While I have questions about that, and I also have questions about the community treatment component of the program and how it is going to reach into the more rural areas of the Province - all very legitimate concerns, and all concerns that I am sure the minister will address at a time when it is convenient for him - having said that, there are components of this legislation that I am very supportive of and that I like very much.

What I like most of all about it is that they have been able to take the recommendations of the Reid-Power inquiry and be able to implement it into law, in most cases, so that we have the ability to deal with mental illness of people who are involuntarily looking for the services themselves. We will have the ability to be able to have more flexibility in dealing with those patients so that we do not have cases like we had with Wilfred Benson last year, the gentleman who was living in a tent outside of Ruth Avenue in Mount Pearl, that we would actually have the ability, under the new legislation, to be able to get Mr. Benson the treatment that he needs. We would have the ability to detain him, based upon the assessment of workers, and ensure that he gets that kind of treatment; whereas a year ago, the legislation did not allow us to be able to do those kinds of things.

The other thing, Madam Speaker, I like about it, as I said earlier, is the fact that in a case like Norman Reid, when he was released from a psychiatric hospital and send to a rural community or any community, that his living conditions were not taken into consideration. The circumstances surrounding the environment that he was being placed in after coming out of a psychiatric hospital did not enter into the treatment phase of his mental illness. Under the new legislation, consideration will be given for that. There will be some consideration for that. It is up to us to ensure that the legislation works to the benefit of these people. It is one thing to have it on paper, it is another thing to have it in practice. It is up to us and the mental health society, and the families and the victims and everyone else, to ensure that the laws which are enacted are enforced and are done so to support the individuals who are involved. In order to support these individuals and in order for this legislation to work, there have to be the resources out there in the communities to make it happen. To date, we fell short of that particular piece of it.

Not only the resources in terms of human resources, in terms of having more mental health nurses and more psychiatrists and those kinds of things, but we also need to have the proper medications and the proper treatments available. One of the things that the Schizophrenia Society continues to raise with myself - and I am sure with other members of the Legislature, because they are a very active lobby organization for their patients - is the fact that there are schizophrenia drugs today on the market that are not available in Newfoundland and Labrador that they feel could help patients who suffer from schizophrenia.

Madam Speaker, we have a good piece of legislation here in the Mental Health Act. In order for it to come into play we need to make sure the resources are there, but also the treatments are there. Not only am I going to ask the government and encourage the government today in passing this piece of legislation to look at adding more support workers to the system in terms of mental health nurses and recruiting more psychiatrists, but I also want to ask the government to seriously look at the drug treatments that are being provided to the patients who suffer from schizophrenia. The one medication that the Schizophrenia Society is asking to be added to the formula is being provided in almost every other province across Canada, and they want to have that medication provided to patients in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not know what the cost will be of adding that drug to the formula. I do not know. I have been away from that part of government for some time and I know that drug costs inflate on a regular basis these days in society. I do not know what the cost would be to the government but I want to encourage you, in your budget deliberations, to look at that, because it would be an awful shame to have a bill, like Bill 61, passed in this Legislature and out there in the Province without the proper tools to be able to implement it appropriately. That would be really unfortunate.

While I think the government did a good job on developing the legislation that is in this bill, I want you to continue with that piece of work, don't drop the ball on it now, continue with that piece of work and put more mental health nurses in our communities. Make sure that the rights advisors you hire are trained with human rights ethics, make sure that the medical treatments that are needed for these patients are available to them. I would say then, and only then, would the job of the government, in terms of this piece of legislation, have been fulfilled because there are many other components that have to be looked at.

Madam Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks on Bill 61. I am sure there are other people who are eager to speak on this legislation.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill 61. This bill has been a long time coming, as we all know. It has been thirty-five years since our past bill on mental health was put in place. I have to say that it feels very good to read this bill and to recognize that we are coming into the twenty-first Century in the Province with regard to our understanding of the needs of people with mental diseases. I am very happy to see the bill brought before us. Obviously, we will be supporting the bill.

There are a few things that I would like to comment on before I comment specifically on the bill. I am very pleased with the consultation process that took place in putting this bill together. I do want to commend the Minister of Health and Community Services for the work that his department has done. I have spoken with some of the stakeholders who took part in the process and they are quite pleased with the way in which they have been involved with regard to the drafting of the bill, even seeing the draft that came before the House, to have input into that as well. So, I think that the more of that that can happen in our Province, the more that we can involve stakeholders right from the very beginning when we are discussing an issue, the better it is, the better it is for the people of the Province and the better it is for us in the House. Because we know that what is coming before us is something that has been thought out very, very carefully by the department that is presenting it; thought out carefully because the department has listened to the people, and I think that is one of the things we all need to learn from.

I also want to recognize the fact that the Minister of Health and Community Services has been listening in the House this past week, and last week, and voluntarily notified both the Official Opposition and myself of a briefing with officials from the Department of Health with regard to the act. Having that briefing with the officials from the department was extremely important. It is good that we can ask questions of clarification and get a better understanding of the bill before it comes to the floor. Having the briefing with the officials allowed that to happen.

I hope that other ministers will pay attention to what the Minister of Health has done and that we see this happening more frequently. I am not talking about small amendments, but when we have - sometimes there are significant amendments and sometimes bills dealing with something brand new. In either of those cases, I think that briefings by department officials are very, very helpful. As I said, I hope that it will become more of a practice in the House.

The other thing that I am very pleased about is the fact that the department and the minister took into consideration, with such seriousness, the recommendations of the Luther Report. We were told this morning in the briefing that seven of the eight recommendations from the Luther Report have been incorporated into the bill. I think that really shows the importance of holding inquiries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Sometimes we have had experiences where, in the history of our governments in Newfoundland and Labrador, inquires happen but we do not see the practical benefits of them. To know that this inquiry is now showing up in this bill, says to me, inquires can work and this is the way that they should work. If we put money into having somebody of the quality of Judge Luther do this work, then we should recognize that work as well, especially because the inquiry is also gathering the voice of the people in the Province, which is so important.

I have to say that, when we were told what the one recommendation was that did not go in, I understood and was satisfied with the reasoning behind the department for not including that recommendation. I suspect the stakeholders must have been as well, because I have not heard any outcry about the fact that one recommendation did not make it, so I am pleased about that also.

While I think the bill is a very good document, like my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, obviously there are some things that I want to speak to in order to show where I think we have to be careful about where this bill is going to go, and also one area where I would like to make a recommendation for an amendment that I will bring forward at the Committee of the Whole, and I have spoken to the minister about that. We are working on wording that we will bring forward when we sit in Committee of the Whole, in discussion of this bill, which I think will not be today. Well , I know it will not be today. Today we just do the second reading.

In general, the bill is very, very good. The area that I most want to speak to is the Community Treatment Orders section, Part IV of the bill. I totally support people living in community, no matter what their disease is, no matter what their disability is, no matter what their condition is, when we can support people in community. I obviously think that as well for people who are suffering from mental disorders and who do not necessarily need to be in institutions. The more we can have people in the community, the better.

We have an experience, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but an experience in our country of Canada, when, back in the 1970s, we went through a very serious deinstitutionalization phase with regard to institutionalizing people who have mental disorders. There were people by the hundreds upon hundreds, and I would not even be surprised if it were by the thousands, when you look at the whole country, who were removed from institutions, having been in them for years, and put out into the community. We know, from that experience, that happened without sufficient supports being put in place in the community for those people.

I think it is an accepted fact that many people who are homeless in our country today - and that goes for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador as well - that their homelessness, their being on the street, their being people without supports, goes back to the fact that they were people who came out of institutions without adequate supports in the community.

That is the big thing that concerns me, probably the biggest thing that concerns me, about the bill, not that we have the community treatment orders there - I am delighted with the section about the community treatment orders - but I am concerned that we are able to make this work. I am concerned that we are able to be assured that the supports and services that are going to be needed for people living in the communities are there.

In the bill it says that somebody may receive a community treatment order if certain criteria are met, and one of the criteria that is mentioned - the most important one, or one of the really important ones - is that the services that the person requires in order to reside in the community so that he or she will not be likely to cause harm to himself or herself, or to others, or to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment are in place, that the services to make sure that the individual is safe, that the community is safe, that their family is safe, and I would like to think that, as it says, not only safe but will not suffer deterioration either mentally or physically, that these services to allow all of that will be in place in the community.

I share the concern of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair with regard to how we are going to be able to assure that those services are in place everywhere in the Province. I would hate to think that a person who might be hospitalized here in St. John's, but who is not from St. John's, would not receive a CTO, as they are called, community treatment orders, because the person wants to go back to their community and the community does not have the services that the person needs, so that the person would have to be refused a CTO by a psychiatrist because the services are not in the person's community. That would be awful.

We could say, well, it is all right, the person could stay in St. John's and maybe the services would be there, but the thing is, one of the most important things that a person needs, who has not only a mental disorder but even a physical disorder, if we are trying to heal ourselves, one of the most important supports is the support of people who are a part of our lives: the support of loved ones, the support of family.

So, it is a problem - I am not blaming it on anybody - it is a major problem that we have, that we can have somebody from a very isolated area who would like to go home but the psychiatrist might fear, well, if the person goes to that community, we just cannot assure that all the services are going to be in place for that person.

It is a bit of a conundrum, but it is something that I put out as something for the Department of Health to think about, and for all of us to think about: How do we put this in place? This is an ideal; the bill states what we hope will be in place.

I think that we also have to look at how we make sure it gets put in place in a way that is equitable, that everybody in the Province can look to it and say: I can be protected by this bill, and I can be protected to the fullest by this bill.

That is probably one of the biggest blocks to this bill being put in place to the degree that we would like to see it put in place.

The other thing that concerns me is that, when we talk about services, and the services that are needed, the bill does not say what those services are. It leaves it open. It just says the services that will be required for safety and to keep deterioration of a person's physical or mental health from happening, but it does not say what those services are. I think it is important, and I have spoken to the minister about this, I think it is important that in some way in the bill that we put in a definition of those services. As I said, we are working on wording that we will bring forward in Committee of the Whole, but I think it is absolutely essential that we do so; because, if we are going to have the person protected, we need to at least be able to assure the person that we understand that good housing is a service that will be required, we understand that home support may be a service that is required, we understand that disability welfare may be a service that is required, that having a case manager accessible is a service that is required, by being able to access the rights advisor, who is referred to in the bill, is a service that would be required. Putting the understanding of those services into the bill is essential in order for the bill to assure people that, yes, they will be safe if they are put out there. They have to know that they are going to be safe if they are put out there.

When we met with the officials from the Department of Health, they talked about the fact that the rights advisors would not be all over the place, there might be only two or three of them, maybe three looking at the three centres that have psychiatric units in hospitals, and those three centres, of course, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and St. John's; and that because it is there, CTOs would be issued by psychiatrists in those three centres, that is where you would most need the rights advisors because at the moment of the issuance of the CTO then a person would be able to access.

In the spirit of the bill, and it is spelled out in the bill, not just in the spirit but actually spelled out, the rights advisors are expected to be available no matter what the need of the patient is and no matter at what point in the timeline. It could be that somebody could have been issued a CTO who is in the community and after six or seven months feels the need of the rights advisor, but if they are not in one of the three centres then we have to find a way that is going to meet person's needs to able to access the rights advisors. I have some concerns that the rights advisors at the moment anyway, the way that was explained to us, are only being seen as being in those three major centres.

There might be a way for the department to look at training of people in communities, people maybe who are in related fields, maybe in the health field but not dealing directly with people with mental disabilities. There might be a way to train people in smaller places around rights issues so they can be advisors. It would not be a full-time job; in small places it would not be a full-time job. If somebody in a community were particularly trained then we could ensure greater access to rights advisors for people, especially those who have been issued CTOs.

These are proposals I am putting out. These are things that I hope will help the ministry think about what is going to need to be put in place. I do not expect a number of advisors to go into the bill, obviously, but I do think that in looking at where the advisors are going to be that the ministry is going to have to consider equal access as much as possible, that we can do it in the Province. We all know the geography of our Province. It is not easy.

I was pleased with the fact that when we were briefed we learned there are going to be eight safe places created apart from the major centres. These eight safe places would be places where somebody can go initially and then from there be moved into the centre where there is a psychiatric unit at the time of an emergency. These safe places would work against somebody having to go into a lockup until they are able to go to a hospital where the psychiatric help occurs.

This is something I really, really did like. Obviously, it is not going to cover all cases. One of the cases I thought about: What about if somebody on the North Coast of Labrador gets into a crisis and the weather is down. If the weather is down on the North Coast of Labrador the weather is down, you are not getting out. There might be sometimes where it will be necessary to use a lockup, but I think what the bill is going to do is to minimize, to a great degree, the occasions when lockups might have to be used. That is something I like. The eight safe places is a very, very good idea and something I am very pleased about.

Madam Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close just by saying, once again, the main things that I am concerned about. One, will be training of the rights advisors. I do think that we can come up with people in a broader number of communities than the ones mentioned to us this morning. I think the numbers and there availability is really important, and being sure that we do not take for granted what is going to be required in the training, that there is a speciality around people understanding human rights, so to be assured that the training is allowed for them.

Another thing is the services issue. I think that the services that are required for somebody in the community do need to be spelled out and we will be working with that, as I have said.

The one other thing is that we were told this morning, it is thought that the cost to help this bill get operative is around $3 million. I guess I would have to say to government, if you are going to take the services seriously and making sure that people have good housing, people have safe housing, that they have home support, disability welfare if needed, that there may be an extra cost, but the cost would not come directly out of the Department of Health and Community Services. Maybe that cost will be out of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I think there are going to added costs if we take the services directly.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with this bill and I look forward to further discussion in Committee of the Whole as we look at how we can meet my concern about the definition of services.

Thank you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move second reading of Bill 61.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment, Bill 61.

MADAM SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MADAM SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 61)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider Bill 55, Bill 52 and Bill 53.

MADAM SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bills: Bill 52, Bill 53 and Bill 55.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on Bill 52, Bill 53 and Bill 55?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Oram): Order, please!

We are ready to hear debate on Bill 52 first, I think.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I am going to call Bill 55 first.

My colleague, I think, has a commitment - he has to step out of the House for a short period - so we will call that first, Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

CHAIR: Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act." (Bill 55)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 13.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 13 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 13 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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I now call Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's. (Bill 53)

CHAIR: Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's." (Bill 53)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 50.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 50 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 50 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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 53 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes.

CHAIR: Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes." (Bill 52)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 49.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 49 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 49 carried.

CLERK: Clause 50.

CHAIR: Clause 50.

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One small amendment. My colleague in the Opposition has been provided with a copy of it. Clause 50 of the bill is deleted and the following is substituted: The Assessment Act is repealed.

It is only a small housekeeping amendment that has to be included as part and parcel of Bill 52.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any further debate?

All right, so we are looking at Bill 52, the amendment to clause 50.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 50, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 50, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 51.

CHAIR: Clause 51.

Shall clause 51 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 51 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 52 carried with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, based on the outstanding success there, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The Committee asks that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 Terra Nova.

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that Bills 55 and 53 have been passed without amendments and Bill 52 with amendments and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bills 55 and 53 have passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 52 passed with some amendments.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of amendments.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the amendments be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of amendments.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 52 be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move third reading of Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes, be now read a third time?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 52 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 Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes, Bill 52.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 52)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move third reading of Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 53 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's, Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's, has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 53)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move third reading of Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 55 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations 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 Labour Relations Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 55)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act." (Bill 59)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a housekeeping bill. Back in the House last spring we passed legislation that was committed since back in the early 1990s. The former government committed that they would make changes because there are only certain contributions that can meet the Income Tax Act under CRA, and any plans or any pension plans or any amounts - and certain other groups, too, in the Province, Mr. Speaker, fell in this category. Once you get to the maximum level that qualifies you under the Income Tax Act, you had to move the rest into a supplementary plan and we passed legislation on that.

To make it easier for administrative purposes, as it states here: Any member who retired on or before December 31, 2003, we would pay then out of the Supplementary Plan that is set up under the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Anybody who retired since that, it would be done proportionately out of the officially registered fund, and what is over and above that would then come out of the Supplementary.

Rather than piecemeal everybody, some out of each, it is much more administratively efficient to do that. Nothing changes in what you do to qualify. Nothing changes in any information anybody will get. Nothing changes. It is just strictly an administrative way to handle it, that is more efficiently done. That really stemmed from the legislation that was already passed here in the House.

With that, I will conclude my comments, I guess, on introducing the bill.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and speak to Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.

This is certainly not a bill where we are giving ourselves an automatic raise or anything of that nature. I already had a conversation with the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board. This bill is simply coming to the House because we are required to do this under the federal income tax setup. It is only an internal administration setup so that we can actually do this as required by the federal government.

There are no changes to the contribution level for members, nor is there any change to the benefit level, nor are there any changes to any other part of the retiring allowances act for members of the House of Assembly. If there were any changes here today, I would certainly be in a position to discuss them, but it is simply a housekeeping bill and I agree with the Minister of Finance on this matter.

For that reason, I have nothing further to say. I am pleased to agree with this bill today, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just move now second reading of Bill 59.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, we now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, Bill 59.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 59)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Bill 56, where debate adjourned on the second reading of that bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now continued to be read a second time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We explained that when it was introduced here, so I will just move second reading on that bill, on Bill 56.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few words to say on this particular bill. We had an opportunity a couple of days ago to debate this in great measure, I would say, but there were a couple of items on that bill that I was concerned about.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly do not want to prevent a member an opportunity to speak; she can in Committee. I think the member has already spoken once in second reading, and we are only entitled to speak once in second reading. When it gets to Committee, certainly, we would have the member speak in Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was in the process of seeking guidance from the Table. I do believe that the hon. the member had spoken at second reading. Therefore, that would preclude the member, without leave, speaking again at this stage. I do understand that is agreeable to all members.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honour, the member is ready to speak and she admits, she acknowledges, she has had her opportunity on this bill. She just thought we had moved on to another one, but, no problem, we certainly concur with that point of order. She is ready and willing to go as soon as they call the next one.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank hon. members for their co-operation and understanding.

We will now, then, call Bill 56 for second reading.

Is it the pleasure of the House, then, to adopt the motion that Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 56)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2." (Bill 60)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were some changes made federally to the dividend tax credit, and things that have impacted the Province. What we wanted to do, as a result of the federal changes, we did not want anybody to be impacted in our Province as a result of it, so what we have done was to introduce amendments to make it revenue neutral to us. So that is basically just a follow-through to ensure that nobody is overtaxed as a result of that, or pays more taxes, to make it neutral to recipients here in our Province.

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

MS THISTLE: I am sure this must be a little bit confusing for viewers out there today. What is confusing, I suppose, is the fact that we have two bills and they are both concerning An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act. This one in particular is No 2.

As the minister just stated, this one in particular is to make sure that - there are different amendments to this one so that people will not be paying too much tax and so on; but, you know, when I look at the fact that we stood here yesterday in this House of Assembly and we had a resolution put forward by the Member for Humber Valley - it was on the Poverty Reduction Strategy - yesterday I never had an opportunity to speak on that particular resolution because there was a great lot of interest in this House. Of course, by the time 5:00 o'clock came, there was so much interest that we could not look after everybody.

When you were talking about income tax here in this Province, you know, it has come to light that a great number of our people are actually working out west, whether it be Alberta or the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, you name it, a lot of our people are working out west and they are actually paying their income tax to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result of that, it is difficult to get an accurate count on the number of people who are actually working in our Province.

It has been said that there are 214,900 people working currently in our Province, but are they really working right here in Newfoundland and Labrador or are they actually, a number of them, working out west and paying income tax in this Province and maintaining a household in this Province?

Now, I do not know how Statistics Canada actually breaks down that record-keeping because I would be interested in knowing, for one, whether or not there are 10,000 people outside of our Province or 20,000 people outside of our Province actually working outside and paying income taxes in this Province and maintaining a household, and yet we think that they are actually working here in our Province.

Now we have, over the past few years and particularly in the past three to four years, seen a different kind of employment that is taking place outside of our Province. In fact, you are seeing companies now, particularly in Alberta, that are actually willing to have our people go and work there, and they charter an airplane to bring them back every three to four weeks. Alberta cannot get enough workers, so they are coming back to Atlantic Canada all the time and they are willing to take the people from our Province, fly them out on a charter airplane, let them work three to four weeks, and charter them back right into their communities, pretty much, at the closest airport. How can we get a handle in our Province on how many people are actually working every day in our Province on a permanent basis?

We see those statistics coming our from the Department of Finance and Stats Canada and there is no breakdown on this new type of worker who is migrating to Western Canada and coming home probably once a month. I would really like to know if Stats Canada sometime could include in their survey that type of worker and how many people are actually working in our Province, because that is a whole new industry that we don't have a handle on here in this Province.

The question yesterday on the Private Member's Resolution was about poverty reduction. That is a difficult topic to tackle. Many governments have tried to tackle poverty, but poverty takes on many faces. Sometimes poverty is a working family making the minimum wage and having to supplement their monthly income by going to a food bank. I was surprised too when I found the booklet from the senior's conference that they had in Clarenville this past summer, and some of the resolutions that came out of that one. You know, sometimes poverty takes on a senior's face, having to park your car when you can't pay the $180 for the driver's license. Sometimes poverty takes on the face of a senior when they can't pay the $100 of having to get a medical assessment to get their driver's license renewed.

Now, that is a brand new fee that was introduced three years ago by this particular government. I have had seniors come to me and say, they shouldn't have to pay for a medical assessment. You know, they have been driving for years and paying taxes all of their life. All of a sudden this new government wants to charge them $100 for a medical assessment. There is something wrong here.

I hope these are the kinds of things that our Finance Minister will take into account in the next budget. I also want him to look at the subsidy for electric heat, which he has promised, and I have the records to prove it. I have the Hansard record. Everything we say in this particular House of Assembly is recorded and televised now. No matter what you said you cannot get out of it because all you have to do is look at the Hansard records. That gives the full run down of every word that is spoken here in this House. There is no way to hide from what you have said. So, it is important when we stand on our feet, particularly for the government who are answering questions, to give factual answers.

Of course, another face of poverty could be an ambulance fee of $115. There are many seniors who would have to think twice about ordering an ambulance today. I heard a very sad story on the Open Line last Sunday night and it was from a resident in Curling, I think. They had an elderly family member, I do not know if it was a mother or a mother-in-law. They tried to get that loved one admitted to hospital because she was in racks of pain. They had an awful time. They went to the hospital, and the hospital gave the lady a Demerol shot and said she could not be admitted. She went home. She was in racks of pain. She came back again and the family insisted, they were not going to leave until that lady got attention. Several physicians, I believe at the time, said they were powerless. They could not do anything about it. Anyway, they found a way to get around it because they actually left the hospital, or went out in the hall, came back in again and asked to see a new physician who had not seen that particular lady. As a result of that, they then ordered new tests and it was found that the woman had two serious infections. She was admitted to hospital and left there overnight. She was really in serious pain, serious condition.

This gentleman got on the Open Line and he relayed the story. He talked about the fact that there is a new rule at the Western Memorial Hospital, that there would be no admittance unless it is for scheduled surgeries or somebody is coming in presenting with symptoms that might be a heart attack or something like that. But just for general situations that happen, people presenting with pain or aliments and that sort of thing, there would be no admittance. You can well imagine! That lady was actually brought to hospital by ambulance. If she had to make another trip and still be in racks of pain with no help, you know, that is a major concern. That is another situation where a senior, number one, would have to think about the fact that they would have to pay for another ambulance at $115, and once they got to the hospital they would not be admitted and have to go home again, and pay more money.

We have a School Lunch Program in our Province. That is another face of poverty. I remember when I was growing up there was no such thing as a School Lunch Program. What has happened over the past, say, ten to fifteen years that we need a School Lunch Program pretty much in every region of the Province, whether it be a breakfast lunch or a lunch at noon? You know, this is a problem and we are dependent now. There are so many corporations out there that decide on a particular charity and they give to, maybe it is the School Lunch Program or maybe it is a cancer foundation or whatever, but corporations are expected to pick up the tab for a School Lunch Program. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador kicks in $500,000, but to operate that plan across the Province there is a lot of money involved. Corporations all over this Province are expected to pick up the tab and feed children who are in school because we all know that with a full belly children can learn much better. That is a face of poverty that is not indicated anywhere in any material that you might see.

Then, of course, there is the university student, the face of poverty. How many university students now are working excessive hours because they have to pay the cost of university tuition and the actual cost of staying in St. John's if you are a rural student? Some of them actually go to food banks. There is a food bank set up right at the university. I watched Out of the Fog the other night and I saw young Luke Pike, who was mentioned in this House about a week ago by the Member for Grand Bank. He has just been given a Rhodes Scholarship. One of the things that he does is volunteer at the food bank in at the university. Imagine, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador! There are 17,000 young people who attend Memorial University, but it is necessary to have a food bank at the university for our students. That is another face of poverty.

Then you think about cancer patients. Cancer patients, the unusual part of cancer treatment. If you are a patient in the hospital, after surgery you will get medications. Once you are discharged from hospital your medications are finished. There is a recovery process after you have had surgery, usually seven days or longer, seven or ten days, where you actually need medications to supplement the surgery that you just had. Now, once you leave the hospital medications are finished, and patients must buy their medications. That is an area that I have heard about in my constituency, where sometimes the senior person, particularly, cannot afford to go out and buy these medications and as a result will not get them. So, their recovery is going to be slowed and there are going to be all kinds of problems.

I know of young cancer patients in Grand Falls-Windsor, that when they had cancer surgery their medications were looked after. These might be young people who are no part of any kind of a health insurance plan. They are working somewhere maybe or maybe they are a student and they are not insured by their parent's plan. I have seen it firsthand, where young cancer patients left the hospital situation needing cancer medications, cancer drugs, and they were unable to buy cancer medication. They did not have the money. That is left up to the parents to look after that or do without. There must be some kind of follow-up, once a patient leaves the hospital, to see if medication can be supplied.

Being an MHA now for the last eleven years I have seen lots of situations where, you know, how government works. I know the internal workings of government and I know where to get any kind of help that I can get for a constituent. When I exhaust every agency within government - and sometimes I will go right to the minister level - when I exhaust all of these agencies within government and I cannot access any help for a constituent, where do I go? Where do I go? You know, when all else fails I go to the churches. I must say that the churches in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans have been wonderful. I have had many situations where a person could not pay their light bill, they could not go to St. John's on a medical emergency, a family member could not go, and I have had people who did not have furniture, they did not have food. There have been all kinds of issues. When I tried every other agency that I could think of, and the social net has collapsed, and I have even tried charities, when every other agency fails, the churches have always come to the rescue. So, thank goodness for the churches. I am sure they are the same in every other district in the Province. I can see a few MHAs nodding their heads, because I am sure other MHAs go to churches when they cannot get any other help.

You know, I think about the things that we have thought about here as being normal in our society, whereas twenty years ago you probably did not see it. Right now, the things that we look at as being normal and routine, it is outside of government and it is dependent on volunteers and charity to pick up the tab.

You think about the Mother's Day Radiothon in Grand Falls-Windsor, where people will call in all over Central Newfoundland and they will make a pledge for a new piece of equipment at the hospital. That goes on in every region of our Province. Now, that did not go on when I was a young woman growing up in Carbonear, but these are the kinds of things that are pretty normal now and we all take part in them - Dial-A-Carol. Look at those Relays for Life for cancer. We have them right throughout our Province.

This is the time of year when everybody is looking to help out with food hampers. I see Karl Wells and Eg Walters on TV and they are looking to collect turkeys - turkeys for the food hampers. Then I see the VOCM Happy Tree, continuous fundraisers. Then I see food drives. Even the post office, today, that delivers the mail to your mailbox every day, once a year you will hang out a bag of groceries and the mail person will deliver your mail and pick up the bag of groceries for the food drive.

Last Saturday we were supposed to have a Santa Claus parade in Grand Falls-Windsor and the weather was bad. Now, we will have that this Saturday, please God. Part of that Santa Claus parade this year and every year will be food. Everyone will be bringing a bag of food, and the Beta Sigma Fi in Grand Falls-Windsor, which I am a part of, will be picking up food along the path. Everything that goes on in the stadium when there is no admission, people will bring a non-perishable item.

All of this combined is the face of poverty that we do not see every day. Then we have Coats for Kids. We have another corporate citizen out there, Newfoundland Power, who makes it their business to collect coats for kids. Then we have the Aliant Pioneers, who will do anything they can to help situations. In fact, most of those, the women, make teddy bears to give to trauma victims in accidents - children.

I had a constituent in my district who needed a computer. This was a young girl who was in high school and she had no way to get a computer. Her family were not able to get her a computer. This is not something that social services will do, give a child a computer, so I said, where am I going to go to get this girl a computer? All of a sudden it dawned on me: I think I will call Aliant Pioneers. I called them, and the response was: Yes, we have all kinds of computers that we have done up, and we will make sure that this young woman gets a computer. They refurbish computers all over our Province and they, in turn, will give them out to school groups or anywhere there is a need. As a result of a volunteer charity group, this young woman and many others were able to get a computer. I have seen the Aliant Pioneers pretty much fit out a school in small communities with computers.

One way to eradicate poverty is to build a strong economy. Now, I am concerned about our economy now. It is all right for the Minister of Finance to get up and rave that we have more money than ever, but I am concerned that we are solely dependent pretty much on oil right now in our economy. Mining is strong. The good news is mining, particularly now with the new developments in Labrador City and also in Central Newfoundland, in my district, and on the Baie Verte Peninsula as well. Mining is strong, but the mainstay of our Province is fishing, and that has - I do not know if there are any words to describe what has happened to our fishing industry.

When I look at The Economy book that was put out in November and I see that our fish landings are down by over 300,000 tons and the total value of fish landings is only up over $400 million, what a frightening prospect to think about. It seems like our people, you know, are sort of resolved to the fact that our fishery is dying.

MS FOOTE: It is sad, isn't it?

MS THISTLE: It is very sad and, I don't know, it is almost like there is nothing happening and people are starting to get complacent. The once proud fisherperson, the once proud plant worker, has almost lost their spirit, their will, and they are ready to say: Well, what can we do? What can we do?

There is lots that can be done, but there is zero attention being paid to our fishing industry today and it is frightening. All the people on the Burin Peninsula who have been without work and they are going to get by just doing these make-work grants. Everybody knows these make-work grants are only minimum wage jobs; and, for anyone who has always been working in the plant and getting a good income, how are they going to survive? You know, are they amongst the population that is out west and bringing their paycheque home or sending their paycheque home, and it looks like they are working in the Province and they are really not?

We have an invisible workforce here in this Province that we think are here working in Newfoundland and Labrador. We think that there are 214,000 people employed here on a full-time basis, but if you were to go out to the airport in St. John's or Deer Lake or Gander and watch those charter flights coming in, with a plane load of people coming in probably every third day, and then there is another plane load going out at the same time, it is almost like working offshore on the oil rigs, where they are going out by helicopter and coming in, but now this is a big plane, a chartered flight, that is taking our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I have been on a couple of flights over the past year and I have seen young men coming back from Ontario, ones who have been working up there on steel rigging and so on, and they were delighted to get home for a week or so. I said to them: What are you doing? One particular fellow said to me that they were building one of the bridges on one of the lakes in Ontario. He said he is working all kinds of hours around the clock because what do you do when you are off. There is no home life, there is no social life, you are just working up there like a robot continuously, and looking at the calendar wondering when the time is going to be up and you are going to come home. That is a young person whose cheque is coming back here to Newfoundland. He reports his income tax as living in Newfoundland and Labrador, but yet, in fact, that person is working on the mainland.

I spoke to a man last night who told me that his son works out of the Province eight months of the year and he is home four months on unemployment. How is that young man reported? He is reported as working here in Newfoundland and Labrador. He is reported as paying taxes to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but, in actual fact, he is working outside this Province. He is a young man who does not have a family, so we know that most of his money is actually spent outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. He comes home here in the winter and he spends money for four months. How many more hundreds and thousands of our people, the invisible employment force, are doing the same thing and we think they are actually working here? There are many more in that same situation.

There is a lot of concern now when I look at our economy. Manufacturing this year is a frightening thing when you look at the economy book this year. Manufacturing employment, right up until November of this year declined by 1,100 person years in the first nine months of 2006, by 6 per cent. That is a big drop in person years. You are not going to have manufacturing unless you have new industry started up. Of course, this stalling on the Hebron/Ben Nevis is causing a big dent in our economy.

Then, you look at housing starts, a true indicator of our economy. I was really pleased with the news coming out of Grand Falls-Windsor yesterday that Kent Building Supplies has bought up ten acres of land on Duggan Street and they are about to start up a new building supplies store in Grand Falls-Windsor. But, you know, there is a reason for that. We have at least 250 new people employed, we are one of the bright spots in the Province. We have a new industry, its mining. Its actually an old industry for Central Newfoundland because we all know how important Buchans was to the economy of this Province, but they closed in 1984. Now there is a new industry in Buchans. Its barite and it's the tailings of the old mill, ASARCO Mines, and it is now being used offshore in drilling. That is one industry.

The big one is mining in Millertown, Duck Pond, Aur Resources and also Messina Mining, and there are a number of companies that are doing drilling exploration in Central Newfoundland. As a result, if you get 250 people, full-time workers, making a good income, they are going to spend that money and that is then spilled over into new housing and a need for more services. It is wonderful now when you look on Cromer Avenue in Grand Falls-Windsor, it is generally fast food outlets on Cromer Avenue, and you see a lot of signs, help wanted, but these are service industry jobs, lower paid, generally minimum wage. Then, of course, Kent have their homework done, they know that there is a demand for building and building supplies in Grand Falls-Windsor. As a result of 250 people working in the Millertown area they are going to need housing. You cannot buy or rent a house right now in Millertown. You cannot buy or rent a house in Millertown. It is nice to be able to say that, isn't it?

I remember when I went to Millertown eleven years ago and I stood up in the fire hall, and I think the population at that time was ninety-six residents in Millertown. You know the population has not increased all that much, we are now up to probably 134, but everything is filled up in Millertown. Outside of Millertown, of course, in the camps at the mine and out everywhere else in Buchans and Buchan's Junction, Badger, Grand Falls-Windsor, there is a big activity and there are a lot of people from Green Bay, from my colleague's district, the Member for Windsor-Springdale. Looks like he is going to have a bit of a challenge the next time for his nomination. I was looking last night in the paper and it looks like my colleague, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, is going to have some competition from a candidate hopeful in Springdale. It looks like he is going to be challenged there.

In the meantime, there are a lot of people from Green Bay, White Bay, Notre Dame Bay, all over Central Newfoundland, and they are able to work at that mine. You know, when you have that many people working, they are going to need services and equipment all the time, traveling over that highway. I am sure that the Minister of Works, Services will have a good announcement in the upcoming Budget for repairs to the Buchans Highway. I would be shocked, in fact, I would be devastated, if he doesn't, because if he doesn't, he is certainly not doing his work, and I would have to ask the Premier to reconsider his job in Cabinet, when you think about how much money is coming out of that area and going into the public purse.

You can really notice housing starts in St. John's or the decline of housing starts. I have heard it said from real estate agents now, it takes about 200 days to actually sell a house in St. John's. That is a long time. That is on the average. That is not every house, but to turn over has been slow. The interest and the rate of real estate going on the market and being sold has decreased about 20 per cent over the last year.

We know that St. John's, Northeast Avalon, depend highly on our oil industry. Whenever there is a slowdown, like occurred the summer with White Rose - there was a shutdown for about six weeks and that made a huge dent. Also, knowing that the Hebron-Ben Nevis project is not going ahead, that has caused a lot of concern with companies that were geared up for that project.

I heard the Minister of Tourism the other day say how wonderful tourism is. I wonder would he say it, when he heard the Member for Burgeo get up the other day and every day and talk about the toilets. My goodness, is that a good thing, having our tourists come to the Province and actually have to use a porta-potty? The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, my colleague, has to stand up in this House every day and ask for the basic necessities of life for his people who are traveling on the ferry from Burgeo to Ramea. I think that is intolerable. I think that is intolerable, for a member to have to get up day after day and ask for the basic necessities of life. For people travelling on that ferry - just think about it yourself. I would not want to actually go in that porta-potty with an audience there sitting around in their cars. Imagine now, ten or fifteen cars lined up and having to make your way to a porta-potty in the middle of the winter and no way to rinse your hands after. I know there is bacterial scrub that we all keep in our briefcases, but it not like actually being able to wash your hands - and sit on a cold toilet seat, a porta-potty there sitting on a couple of pieces of two-by-four and probably has not been emptied for a week or two. That is not fun, is it? Can you imagine having to do that? That is disgusting, isn't it? That is disgusting.

Here is the Minister of Business saying that we need branding. He says we need branding, so we can display ourselves to the world. I would say we need the comforts of life that everybody else has. Right now, as far as I know, there was $500,000. I saw it myself. He had to come up with a Special Warrant so he could get out the picture of the Pitcher Plant. He had to get $500,000. He could not wait until the next budget because this was an urgent matter. He had to get it out and show everybody that we wanted to show the world that we were proud of the Pitcher Plant. We wanted to get that out come - I suppose I am not allowed to swear in the House of Assembly.

There is a sign outside the Confederation Building that looks like the Holiday Inn, by the way. You can be driving along the parkway and you think you are up at the Holiday Inn, but you are not. You are up at the Confederation Building where the three flowers are on it, the Pitcher Plant. That is a $20,000 sign, in any man's language. Get out and have a look at it. Anyone who is watching this show now should get out tomorrow and look at that $20,000 sign. Instead of putting the three flowers on it, you should have painted a money bag on it because that is what it is all about; $20,000 for a sign. I would be ashamed to say it.

Here is the Minister of Tourism - it is laughable. He is trying to promote tourism and that he has everyone counted. They are on an automatic counter who comes off a cruise ship. If there is a cruise ship that comes into St. John's Harbour and there are 700 on board, he counts that 700 as visiting the Province. That is why he thinks the numbers are up. Well, my goodness, just go out around rural Newfoundland and Labrador and ask them what their tourism industry was like this summer. You will not hear that, sir.

Now, the people who have to get off the ferry in Burgeo and Ramea - before they can get on the ferry, first they have to visit the porta-potty, and after they get off the ferry they have to get on the porta-potty. Can you imagine, with your winter parka on and everything heading for that porta-potty? It is just like going up on stage. If there are fifteen cars behind you, they are all watching you get out of the car and head for the porta-potty. You have to then turn around after and come out of that, straighten up your clothes and head for your car. Then your entertainment is watching the next one get on the porta-potty. It is laughable, but it is terrible just the same.

The Minister of Transportation and Works, he is satisfied to let that go like that. He ordered his people to go in and put the porta-potties down. He didn't care one bit if people had a sink or anything to wash their hands or anything like that. I think that is disgusting; anyone who can stand up here boasting that they had a surplus budget and they had $20,000 to put a four-by-four sign out in front of the Confederation Building and still, for all that, they cannot put a washroom down in Burgeo where the ferry runs from Ramea. I think that is disgusting. I think if I were the Premier of this Province I would not have my minister out and do the like of that. If I were the Premier of this Province I would say right now to the Member for Lake Melville: Get out and fix up that situation. That is small money to put a proper - we know what the security shack cost in Bull Arm. A woman lost her job over that, but you do not need to go to that extreme. You can put up a regular, little, small shack that is heated, with a sink there and a toilet.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Is it done? I am looking at - where is he from? St. John's Centre. The Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier just said, it is done. I hope you will relay that message to the Premier tonight, because if you do, you have a good chance of getting in Cabinet. There are a few there who are on their way out. You might get in. Oh, no! He is not going to get in. He just got flicked from the Public Accounts Committee. He is not going in.

Even though he told me it is done, it is not going to be done, right? I must ask that question on Monday when I stand up in the House. Based on the Member for St. John's Centre, the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, he said it is going to be done. I hope anyone who is watching this now will say that member said it is going to be done.

MS FOOTE: So much for the minister.

MS THISTLE: So much for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

It will be interesting now to watch and see if there is going to an announcement made on Monday. I expect the work is going to start tomorrow morning.

Now, I do not know if you have any two-by-four left over from those signs. You have $20,000, that you could put a sign out in front of the building here.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is six-by-six not four-by four.

MS THISTLE: Oh, he told me it is six-by-six, it is not four-by-four. Okay. You used a sheet- and-a-half did you or used it lengthways? A sheet of plywood is usually four-by-eight, isn't it? A sheet-and-a-half, yes, so you could get two sides out of it. He used a sheet-and-a-half so he could get two sides out of it. He wanted to get value for money.

I saw him today, he was up on his feet. The Minister of Business said he wanted to get value for money on the branding thing. Yes, sir, he used a sheet-and-a-half. He got two sides of the sign and it cost $20,000. That is value. Make no wonder Kent Building Supplies are moving to Grand Falls-Windsor.

MR. BUTLER: You have to remember now, he drilled two holes for that, too.

MS THISTLE: And they drilled two holes.

MS FOOTE: He is a pharmacist though.

MS THISTLE: He is a pharmacist.

MR. O'BRIEN: I am a pharmacist.

MS THISTLE: Now, him being a pharmacist: Do you agree with the fact that people who are in hospital for surgery should get enough medication, seniors, to last them seven days when they get out? Do you agree with that?

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: He wants to work part-time as a pharmacist with government, he just said. Okay. We already had one person in health care who decided they wanted a part-time job. Now we are hearing that the Minister of Business wants to go help out the pharmacy situation in the Province. He wants to do a bit of part-time work. There you go. That is what he wants to do.

No jokes aside, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here that could be corrected very easily. I think it is terrible when members along this side of the House have to stand up and make their case day after day. That did not happen when we were the government. I often saw the Member for Baie Verte and the Member for Bonavista South stand up and make cases for their constituents, and I can tell you they were treated fairly. They were treated fairly.

MS FOOTE: And they will tell you they were treated fairly.

MS THISTLE: And they will tell you right away that they were treated fairly. Anyone who is viewing this program and watching what is happening here in the House of Assembly knows full-well that we all pay our taxes and the revenue in the pot is not Tory, Liberal or NDP. The money in that public purse is controlled and guarded by our Finance Minister. There is no section in that money bag that says it is Liberal or Tory or NDP. It is the people's money and there is no reason why we, as elected MHAs, Members of the House of Assembly, should have to get up here and beg for the common necessities of life. We should not have to do it, and I think it is deplorable when a member has to get up and ask for a very small request, and put it into a petition, and day after day it is falling on deaf ears. I can tell you, you are not going to buy any votes that way. You will be thought better about if you were actually going to go and help the people who need this service rather than prolong it.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I reviewed the spending that was done recently on the Premiers' Conference that was held here in St. John's, and I also looked at the fact that we are into a situation now where the Finance Minister, on one hand, is saying that we have no problems with equalization. He is not the least bit concerned that we have a problem with equalization. Yet, his Premier is in every newspaper in the country saying that he is going to have to take on the federal government; he is going to have to go across Canada, because he is concerned about the equalization.

He had a letter from Stephen Harper, and the letter was dated January 4, 2006. That was before the last federal election. Stephen Harper committed that our natural resources, our oil revenue resources, would be removed from our equalization plan. Today, he is saying that he is going to have to think about that. The Prime Minister of our country saying that he is going to have to think about that.

Now, the Premier had a written commitment from Stephen Harper. He had a written commitment from Stephen Harper. I have a copy of the letter, and everybody has a copy of the letter. Now, what the Premier should have done, as soon as the last vote was counted in that federal election, he should have been on the plane the next morning and say: Stephen Harper, you gave me your commitment. Now, you put that into government policy today - he had it in writing - but our Premier did not do that. He waited until the Tory convention this fall that was held in Gander, and in that convention there was a big racket. In fact, the Premier's brother and the president of the PC Party of Canada almost came to blows in the hotel hall.

MS FOOTE: No, in the parking lot.

MS THISTLE: And the parking lot. There was a big racket in Gander.

Now, I don't understand why the Premier has not gotten Stephen Harper's commitment that he wrote to us in government policy. This is almost a year later. This is December 7. That was January 4, last year. This is a year later. The Premier of our Province had a written agreement on equalization. It is not into federal government policy today.

I asked that question to the Minister of Finance yesterday in the House, and he got up and said he was not concerned. There is no issue, he said, in the federal government about this equalization and he is not concerned.

I say to the Finance Minister today: Have you done any talking with the Premier lately? Have you done any talking with the Premier lately?

MS FOOTE: I think he is ignoring you.

MS THISTLE: I think he is ignoring me, because I have a wad of newspapers from all over the country and our Premier, Premier Williams, is in every paper across our country as taking on the federal government because they did not live up to their written agreement that they gave the Premier before the election. The Finance Minister, yesterday, sloughed this off. He said there is no problem with equalization.

How do you think the Premier feels when he hears that? That leads me to one conclusion. There is either no problem with the equalization or the Premier is using this mad, bullying tactic to garner support during a polling period. What is it? Why would he say - the polling period is over for this quarter. Yesterday he had the Atlantic Premiers meet here in St. John's, and he is on the same kick with the Atlantic Premiers here in St. John's. I don't know if his Finance Minister is out of sync with what the Premier is doing, or he does not agree with what the Premier is doing.

The provincial Finance Ministers are going to meet next week, December 15, with the Finance Minister for all of Canada, in Vancouver to discuss equalization. Our Finance Minister is going to meet next week in Vancouver with Minister Flaherty to discuss equalization. Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald wants resource revenues included in calculating equalization benefits, so you are not going to get any support from Nova Scotia like you had when you had Premier Hamm there. You are not going to get any support from Premier Rodney MacDonald from Nova Scotia because he wants resource revenues included. Our Premier does not want revenue resources included.

He had that commitment last January, 2006, from Stephen Harper. That commitment from Stephen Harper, why wasn't that into government policy a year later? Our Premier had a written agreement, and he said a contract is a contract. Why hasn't he gotten that agreement from the federal government today? Why is he worried?

I would be worried if I was the Finance Minister, because everything that came up in November on our economy pointed to the fact that we are solely dependent on oil in our Province, so the Atlantic Accord equalization formula is top priority. It is priority number one here in our Province. Why the Finance Minister doesn't think we have a problem on equalization when his Premier, his boss, is running around the country saying that he has to take on the federal government and he is rallying the troops - so, every forum that he can get across the country, he is taking on the federal government and he is going to campaign against them in next election because he thinks that our equalization is in jeopardy - unless the Finance Minister is burying his head in the sand, or the Premier of our Province is trying to do something for a polling period, I don't know.

I think, from the negativity that was expressed by Stephen Harper when he attended the Tory convention in Gander, where he was the guest speaker, he had second thoughts about what he wrote on that letter last January. He had second thoughts about that and, as a result of that, he has a big fish to fry right now, because we know that there are provinces across the country that are deadly opposed to the deal that Newfoundland and Labrador got under the Paul Martin government. We know that to be a fact.

Now, does Stephen Harper think that we are a challenge? Probably not. We have seven members. Stephen Harper is looking to Quebec. He is looking to appease Quebec. He is also looking to appease Ontario, where the votes are, where the population is. So we do, although we thought - and I remember the clip on TV when our Premier came down the escalator at the St. John's airport. Can anybody remember what was said that night when the Premier came down over the escalator? We got it! We got it! Wow! I don't know if you are going to shout as loud. He got it. He had a deal from Prime Minister Martin and he thought he had confirmation of that deal when the Tories were running and Stephen Harper was the Leader and now the Prime Minister.

MS S. OSBORNE: He is not (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

MS S. OSBORNE: He is Conservative.

MS THISTLE: He is Conservative. He is still the Prime Minister. I do not care what you call him. Okay, the Member for St. John's West doesn't want to call Stephen Harper a Progressive Conservative. He is the C man, the Conservation. I do not know what he is, but he is a Conservative. That is similar to Progressive Conservative, isn't it or is it not?

Anyway that Mr. Conservative, Stephen Harper, he made a deal with your boss on January 4, 2006. The deal was in writing. What did your boss do about it? He did not hop on the plane and he did not go up and see Stephen Harper and say: Listen here, Buddy, you made a deal with me, now you get and make that into government policy because I have a written contract with you, you made a deal. Instead of that, nine months later, when Stephen Harper turns up at the Tory Convention in Gander, sparks are flying. Stephen Harper had a change of heart. Do you know something? Our equalization could be at risk based on what the Prime Minister said.

Now, Loyola - excuse me, the Finance Minister. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn't mean to say that. Our Finance Minister denied all of that yesterday when I questioned him in Question Period, but I tell you, that is a big issue, because if we do not have the formula for our equalization plan like we thought we had and with our manufacturing down and our fishery down, and everything else is connected to that oil economy, we would be in serious trouble.

Our Finance Minister has a big job ahead of him when he heads out to Vancouver next week because he has a lot of competing interests. When he gets at that table in Vancouver, there will be people there from every province and territory in the country. Now, a lot of people are not interested in equalization. I mean, you are going to get provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, that are interested, but look at provinces that are wealthy, Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario. Do you think they are interested in equalization?

Look at the relationship that our Premier has with Stephen Harper. This is notable quotes from the media conference held Wednesday, that was yesterday, following the Council of Atlantic Premiers meeting at the Delta. This is what our Premier said: We are a force to be reckoned with in this country and we are quite proud of it, frankly. Then you have Pat Binns and he said, it takes into account everyone's relative position, a ten-province standard with Aur Resource revenues is the way the formula would best serve the country. You have a lot of competing interests. You have a lot of competing interests for that equalization formula. There is a lot of pressure on our Finance Minister's shoulders next week. When he goes to Vancouver next week there will be a lot of pressure on his shoulders. The pressure in the House of Assembly will be minor.

The Minister of Finance now is the Government House Leader, and he is the Minister of Finance. Now, he thinks his days are stressful in the House of Assembly! When he gets out in Vancouver next week and he is seated around a big table where you have all of these Premiers and territorial leaders and they are all saying, well you do not need any money Mr. Finance Minister from St. John's, you do not need any money - sure, didn't you wine and dine everybody $700 a head last summer? Didn't you buy mugs and jugs and sweaters for $100,000? Now you are coming up putting on a poor mouth with your cap in your hand. Forget it! Go home. You had your deal and you did not take it. You had your deal, you did not pursue it.

You think the Premier has a hard job, when he has to go across the country and convince everybody that the equalization formula should stay as it is! Well, I would say that is going to be the test. That is going to be the test for his Finance Minister next week. If he comes home empty handed I would say there is going to be a by-election in Ferryland. That is the next by-election, the one in Ferryland, because that is the test now. If he comes back empty-handed without the deal signed up like Stephen Harper promised that is the next paper that is coming up for nomination; by-election in Ferryland after the conference next week in Vancouver.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) by-election, didn't he, Anna?

MS THISTLE: I have to tell my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, that the Member for St. John's Centre got the inroads with the Premier. He has lots of authority. He stood here in the House today and said that they are going to get a new terminal down in Burgeo to look after people on the ferry. It is going to be better than the security shed out in Bull Arm. They are going to be able to have a washroom for females and one for males. It is going to be all heated and they will not have to use the porta-potties anymore.

If I were the Minister of Transportation and Works now I would be concerned that this fellow here is trying to get your job. He is speaking up for you now, so if I were you I would be concerned that he is trying to get your job.

We had another newcomer today, the Member for Terra Nova, who sat in the Committee Chairperson's Chair for the first time. If I was a backbencher there and I was kind of rusty after being there ten years on the back benches, I would be concerned if I were you guys. There are a few there. They are kind of rusty now. They have been on the benches, I think, anywhere from -

MS FOOTE: Aren't you glad to see Wally back, though?

MS THISTLE: Oh, I am glad to see the Member for St. Barbe. They tried to do him in. They ran a candidate against him, thought they were going to get him out of his seat. They did not do in the Member for St. Barbe. Now, they are trying to do in the Member for Windsor-Springdale. They are trying to do in the Member for Windsor-Springdale now.

It says here in this paper, Mr. Edison said, Randy Edison, he is going to challenge the incumbent. There is no schedule for nominations, but he must have an in with the Premier because this is what he said. He said: But the Premier has been calling an average of two a week since late October. He said he is expecting to get a call soon.

The Member for Windsor-Springdale is going to be challenged. I have a feeling now that the Premier might know who this candidate might be. Anyway, they never did in the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I wonder, are they going to try to do in the Member for Humber Valley? I noticed that they were in the paper this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, she's baiting us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: The Member for St. John's South just said: I am baiting them. It does not take much to bait you, then.

The Member for Humber Valley, I noticed that her council was in the paper this morning. They are not doing anything else until they get a commitment from government in writing. I would say they are doing the right thing, because do you know what? They are trying to stretch that out and not put the bridge there in Nicholsville. They are trying to stretch that out until they get past the next election. The council are smarter than the government because I will tell you one thing, I know they will put the sign up again if they do not get the commitment from government in writing.

This Premier here had a commitment in writing and he did not run with it. He did not run with the ball. Now the Finance Minister has to pick up and try to fix up the deal. That is what he has to do; Johnny on the spot. I can tell you, if the Finance Minister fails next week, there will be a by-election in Ferryland. There will be one in Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Oh, my dear, you have no worry about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I think Mr. Speaker, I have educated the government members on the seriousness of our equalization matter this afternoon and that is very relevant to the Income Tax Act. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today. It is an interesting bill when you consider all the issues that can be talked about with respect to the relativity of this particular bill.

I know that when I go down to my own district, down to the District of Grand Bank, and have a chance to speak with people who are going through some really difficult times, it kind of brings into perspective what we see here in terms of government spending and how this government just do not have their priorities right when it comes to taking care of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I think it is time they recognize that they are the government of the people and they are supposed to be the government of the people. They are, in fact, elected to serve the people. It does not matter whether or not you sit on the government side, or you sit in Opposition, at the end of the day the Premier is the Premier of the Province, which is why it is really important for them to understand that the priorities of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are essential bread and butter issues.

When you talk about people having to leave this Province to find work in the magnitude that we are finding today, when you have a job fair on Kenmount Road in St. John's and you have 9,000 lining up looking for work and hoping beyond hope to find work in Alberta, then we have a serious situation on our hands. Contrary to what the Premier's acquaintance, Mr. Dean MacDonald, has said, you know this common reference to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are homing pigeons - well, I have great difficulty with that. Even though they want to come home, the objective for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is to provide a living for their families, to make sure their families can live in comfort. To suggest that they are homing pigeons and they will come home no matter what, is not true, and I have great difficulty with that statement. I am not sure who used it first. I am not sure if the Premier used it first or if, in fact, Mr. MacDonald used it first, but both men have said the same thing: Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are homing pigeons. So, is it any wonder that we question the relationship between Dean MacDonald and Premier Williams?

At the end of the day, the issue here is that we need to provide, ensure, that employment is provided for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to work in this Province. I am not saying the government has to cough up the money to do that, but they certainly have to create an investment climate where private industry will want to work.

Today, in response to a minister's statement - the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development talked about taking a trade mission to Alberta, people who are interested in manufacturing and taking them to Alberta, and it was going to be limited to the Stephenville and Corner Brook area. I suggested to the Premier that he should look beyond that because I know in my own district there is a company that would love to do some of that steel fabrication, metal fabrication, but what I am told is that to make it competitive we need to have either a coating or a galvanizing facility. I am told we do not have that in the Province. Now, the minister says we do, and maybe we do have it on a small scale and maybe we do have it in some pockets of this Province, but I am told that it is not to the extend that would make it viable for any companies here to compete with those provinces that have it on a larger scale, particularly like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

If we are going to be sending a trade mission to Alberta to try and export our metal fabrication to that province because they are full to capacity out there, then we have to make sure that we are competitive. What that means is making sure that we have a coating or galvanizing facility in this Province that will be able to do the type of work that needs to be done and not find themselves in the underdog position of not being able to compete with other provinces who you know are also looking to Alberta to export their product to that province.

As I told the minister today, it is important to recognize that there are opportunities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is just one of them. I am asking him again to expand the mission to include other parts of this Province, other than Stephenville and Corner Brook. I know Stephenville is going through a rough time and it is right to do what he is doing, but let's expand that so other parts of the Province can participate as well, and in so doing will be able to create that much needed employment for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are serious issues in this Province, and I do not think anyone would challenge that statement. If you look at what is happening today, seeing our food banks being sought out by people who have never gone there before - they are being utilized to the limit. It is difficult on those people who manage those food banks because, do not forget, they are managed by volunteers. When you have to turn somebody away because you do not have enough food, knowing that they may go hungry, that is difficult. That is difficult on volunteers who we rely on day in and day out. That is a challenge. It is a challenge that this government has to recognize, that there are people who are going hungry and we need to do everything we can as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, which is what we are known for. We are known for caring for each other, for reaching out for each other, to making sure that people do not go hungry.

At this time of the year, in particular, I do not know how many of you are aware but the women's centre here in St. John's - and I am sure in other centres throughout the Province - they have families that you can support at Christmas; single moms who have children, who really do not know how they are going to provide for them during this season. These are children like any other children. They are looking to their parents to provide them that Christmas gift. They want to find under the tree something that they want. What the women's centre does, for anyone who is interested, they will give you a family, a single parent with children and the wish list of that family. Usually the mom does not have a wish list for herself and you can buy something if you want, but there is a wish list from the children; and, like all other children, they want the same types of gifts that children with two parents, two working parents, expect and usually receive. When you hear this kind of information, it makes you realize that these are challenging times for people and we need to do everything we can to ensure that these people are taken care of.

Homelessness, whether we want to believe it or not, there are homeless people in this Province. I do not know how many of you saw the young man being interviewed on one of the TV programs recently, eighteen years old, down on Water Street, has himself set up in a corner of some store or bar down there, eighteen years old. He left home years ago, and he is only eighteen, but he cannot get a job because he does not have a fixed address. This is a young man who wants to work. The winter has set in, and he has nowhere to live but in some little cubbyhole down on Water Street, or wherever he can pitch his cardboard box. He needs help. This is a young man, eighteen years old, who, if we do not do something to help him, is probably going to end up doing something desperate just to do ends meet, just to be able to provide for himself and be able to feed himself. These are the types of things that are happening in this Province and, while you want to talk about all the good news, we cannot lose sight that there are challenges here.

When I hear government members standing up and talking about, I see the glass half full instead of half empty, I question where he finds that glass, because I can tell you that these are difficult times. These are difficult times, and if this member likes to look at things as the glass being half full instead of being half empty, you know, there is nothing wrong with being a bit optimistic and having a positive attitude, but don't lose sight of the individuals who are crying out every day to be heard. Do not lose sight of the MS patients who want so desperately to have their medication funded. Do not lose sight of those with diabetes who really would like to able to access the pump. Do you know that pump costs $5,000? I didn't know that until we went to a dinner sponsored by the Canadian Diabetes Association for all MHAs, and I have to say it was wonderful to see so many of us there. It showed our interest, which was good. I am sure you must have been as alarmed as I was when we looked at what it cost to deal with diabetes. It is a shame, and there must be a way, with the kind of money that this government has come into, there must be a way that you can respond to these needs in a positive way. There has to be.

When you can spend $1.2 million on a branding initiative, when you can put $15 million into a fibre optic deal - and we do not know yet what that is buying in terms of the number of strands. We do not even know what the other partners are putting in. We know that we are putting the bulk of the money into the partnership. When you can spend that kind of money, $1.4 million, on a Premiers' Conference, when you can spend $200,000 for one night of entertainment for dinner and booze, there is something wrong. Eight thousand dollars for fur coats for Ralph Klein and his wife, and that was in the middle of July. As the Leader of the Opposition said the other day, I wonder what the Premier gave the Premiers that he just met with yesterday here in St. John's, because we had a big snowstorm. It just begs the question about priorities, this government's priorities.

We talk about positive things. Well, you know, it was not positive when you increased the ambulance fee. It was not positive when you increased the driver's licence. Do you know now that anyone who wants to get their licence for the first time has to pay $2 to buy the booklet? Can you imagine, $2 to buy the booklet? There is something wrong in this Province when you try and get every dollar you can from the ordinary citizen. You pay now for a birth certificate - a death certificate. While you paid for a birth certificate before, you never had to pay for a death certificate until this government took office. Now you get them coming and going. Imagine when your loved one dies and you have to write in and get the death certificate. You have to send along a $25 cheque to cover it. There is something wrong.

Then we listen to students, and Travis Parsons from my own district who made a plea - in fact, made a plea on the Open Line show - for government to consider either writing off the interest on student loans, making it.... He didn't even ask for free tuition, but he asked if government would consider writing off the interest. Do you know what happened? The Premier called into Open Line after he heard Travis, and the host of the program said: Did you hear Travis? He said: Yes, I did, and I am willing to listen to that young man. Just have him come to my office. I am willing to listen to that young man and see what he has to say. Now, I can't promise anything but I am willing to listen.

Well, guess what? Travis Parsons came into St. John's, went to the Premier's office, and could not meet with the Premier. An assistant met with him. Now, that was not what he was offered. He was offered the ear of the Premier who makes the decisions. Why does that happen if this government is accountable, if this government is transparent? How can something like that happen?

Then we have the daycare operators. Daycare operators are so important in this Province, particularly today when you have two members of a family who have no choice but to work if they want to make ends meet. They met with the Premier out in Appleton when Ken Dryden, who was then the federal minister, came down and announced funding for a national daycare program. The Premier was there, and two of the members of the organization PACAL went up to him and said: We really need to talk to you about daycare in our Province.

Guess what the Premier said? Of course, just call my office; I will sit down with you. Well, one of them called his office and was told by an assistant: Sorry, the Premier has a really busy schedule. Not sure if we can fit you in. She said: No, no, you don't understand me. The Premier said he wants to meet with us. She said: But he has a really busy schedule. She said: No, you are not hearing me. It is the Premier who said he wants to meet with us, when we told him we had concerns. She said: Well, I have a list. I can put you on the list. She said: Okay, put me on the list. That was a year-and-a-half ago, and they still have not had that meeting with the Premier.

I know he has a busy schedule, but don't make commitments that you have no intention of keeping. That is a simple thing. If you want Travis Parsons to meet with the Minister of Education, tell him. If you want you PACAL to meet with the Minister of Health, tell them, but do not make promises you have no intention of keeping. We are seeing that day in and day out. Is it any wonder that people are starting to question this government's accountability, this government's transparency? You campaigned on it. Live up to it.

Let me get back to the Burin Peninsula. Let me get back to my hometown of Grand Bank, and the health care facility that was underway, actually; $3.5 million had been already spent. All the groundwork had been done, steel in place, and this government came into power and decided, whoa, just a minute now, we are not going to proceed with that. In fact, the Premier cancelled it, a health care facility that had been talked about for ages and ages and ages. It was decided that the best thing to do, the more economical thing to do, the better in terms of health care to do, was to combine the seniors' home with the clinic.

The clinic, by the way, is an old cottage hospital that is over seventy years old. It is not fit to step into. Yet, we have people going there every day looking to be treated for their health issues. We have people working in that facility. It is not right, but this Premier and this government cancelled that health care facility, until the leader of the PC Association in my district, Mr. Jack Cumben - I mean, I stood on my feet day in and day out pleading for the government to continue with this facility, but it was the president of the PC Association in my district who said: Premier, if you do not go ahead with this facility, I am not going to be your president any more. In fact, I am quitting the PC Association.

That is all it took and, lo and behold, the Premier changed his mind. He could not give us what the Liberal government had promised, though. Instead, what he decided to do was build a new health care facility and redevelop the seniors' home. Why in the name of heavens you would make that decision I do not know, but guess what they have done? They have taken off the two wings of the steel structure, because those two wings were going to accommodate the seniors' home. We are still waiting, over a year later, to see any kind of tender being called for those two facilities, for the redevelopment of the Blue Crest or the construction of the clinic, and guess what? I am being told that it is unlikely the tenders will be called before February. You know and I know, with our weather, if they are not called before February, work is not going to get started until spring. You know and I know what that means. That means it will be going full blazes come October, 2007, when we are in the middle of an election. Is it any wonder people get suspicious? Is it any wonder people doubt the Premier's sincerity?

He went down to Grand Bank, went into the seniors' home, and people gave a standing ovation when he announced this was going to move forward. Even though it wasn't what they wanted, they said: Hey, we will take it. Because, they were afraid if they did not take this they would get nothing.

That is where people are in this Province. This government has them in a position where they really do not know if they should protest, because they do not know if they will be taken to task. If they protest, maybe they will not get anything, let alone try and achieve what they are protesting for or about. It is a sad situation.

Here I am now with people on the Burin Peninsula hoping upon hope in Fortune that Cooke Aquaculture is going to go in there and we will see badly-needed employment. We do not know. We do not know if that is going to happen but, I can tell you, if something does not happen soon there are not going to be any people left in Fortune to work for Cooke Aquaculture. They will have to bring them over from Thailand, or wherever they bring them over from.

In Grand Bank, we are hoping upon hope that Clearwater will not be asked to go down the same path that FPI is being asked to go down in Marystown and take a $2 an hour wage cut. We are hoping that will not happen. We are hoping upon hope that we are going to see one or two of the ferries that are being talked about by the provincial government for the ferry replacement program, that we are going to see those built in Marystown. Hope - but hope does not pay the bills. Hope does not pay the bills, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am asking the government today to recognize that it needs to live up to its commitments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[The remainder of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 36A]

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few minutes to speak on Bill 60, the income tax bill.

It has been a long time since I first came to the House of Assembly. It was back in the spring of 1989, seventeen-and-a-half years being here, seventeen-and-a-half years representing people in the rural communities - probably rural, rural communities - on the Connaigre Peninsula, all the way west to Ramea and east to Rencontre East.

During these seventeen years there have been some ups and downs, there have been some disappointments, there have been some things happen. For example, right now in the area that I represent, I think we are going to do very well in aquaculture, the fact that we are strategically located where we are. Because of our location, obviously, the companies wanted to move in where, on the South Coast, we have no ice. We are ice free all year round and strategically located, and the bays and inlets are good for the cages for the growing of the salmon, the trout, the cod and what have you.

I can recognize these things happening but, you know, one of my challenges, I guess, as a member when I first got elected, was to look at the region and see some of things that we needed. One of the things that we needed more than anything else was a new health care centre. We were served by a cottage hospital that was demolished this year by a contract by works, services and transportation, in favour of a new health care facility in Harbour Breton - much badly needed. One of the best projects that has been done in my district, Mr. Speaker. I think it was roughly around $8 million to construct, and there is not a person on the Connaigre Peninsula who visits that place daily who does not recognize the importance of that particular centre.

You go into the palliative care unit - and I have been there many time with family members - only a couple of weeks ago, when I was there, a young lady who passed away last weekend was in the palliative care unit there. It provides some dignity for the people from that particular part of the coast.

I remember visiting, when we were in the old cottage hospital, when there was just a screen between an eight-year-old boy and an eighty-year-old man who was basically on his last few moments before passing away. These conditions were not conducive to good family situations or health care anywhere else. It has meant a lot to the people on the Connaigre Peninsula.

Lo and behold, I get a letter today that has been faxed to me from the Town of Harbour Breton. You know, in the Town of Harbour Breton primarily - not only Harbour Breton but Ramea and all the other communities - the last number of years has been very, very difficult. The people have been down and really, in a sense, not knowing where to turn, but, you know, we had services. I said, one of the bright spots for the area was a new health care centre.

I got a letter today that was addressed to Rosemary Goodyear, Central Health Care Board, and I want to read it into the record. It comes from the Mayor of Harbour Breton, Don Stewart, and this is what it says - and these are the things that concern me, that concern me very, very much, because if you take the services out of the rural part of the Province and you take away those things, there is nothing for people. This is what it says: It has come to our attention that the domestic department at the Connaigre Peninsula Health Care Centre in Harbour Breton recently lost two full-time positions, one being sixty-seven point five hours.

If that was not enough, the next paragraph says: We have also been made aware that several other services such as dental, physiotherapy and even the laundry service have been or are scheduled to be downgraded.

Now, I cannot accept that, and I only heard about that this afternoon. I am telling you that there will be noise, and I will continue to fight for these services. You have to remember where we are. Down on the Connaigre Peninsula, we are two-and-a-half hours away from Grand Falls at the best of times. We go on the highway, over 200 kilometres, and there is nothing, you are in the wilderness there.

To realize that people from that area from Harbour Breton, McCallum, Hermitage, Seal Cove, Gaultois, Red Cove, Coomb's Cove, Boxey, English Harbour, Mose Ambrose, St. Jacques, Belleoram, Pool's Cove, and all areas in between have to have a situation where you have a building and no services. Come on, this is the type of thing that really, in a sense, matters to people. It does matter to people. Health care matters to people. It matters a whole lot.

When you have to go to Grand Falls for everything - and not only to Grand Falls, to come here - these are the type of things that really challenge the fabric of the society. It really does, because many of the people in the small communities across the coast are those at the lower end of the socio-economic skill. They need a hand up, not a hand down.

One of the things that they look for, from any government, regardless of stripe, is the fact they need good health care. When you have a facility like we have, and you are going to cut services to the people in the region, then obviously people are concerned and they are upset, and they have a right to be upset.

That is what government is supposed to be doing, providing services for people who live in the areas that are far flung and outstretched. This is what our society is about in Newfoundland. I recognize, like anybody else, the changing demographics, where half of the people in the Province live on the Avalon Peninsula, but there are people in Labrador, there are people on the Northern Peninsula, there are people on the Southwest Coast, and there are people in Ramea and there are people in Burgeo. These are long communities, and you drive them and you know. They are out there, really, at the end of the line. When these people see their services downgraded, then there is something wrong with it. As I said earlier, I will check into it.

When I talk about Harbour Breton, I talk about the whole area, really over the last couple of years when we had the FPI fiasco here in the House, everybody understands what the people have been through. It has been a rough time, and I mean a rough time. We have allowed a company like FPI, as far as I am concerned, to really run roughshod over the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know FPI is no longer in Harbour Breton, they have moved out, and the Barry company have moved in, but do I have concerns about that? You bet I do. I am not sure at the end of the day that Harbour Breton is really going to be what they are looking for, and that is what scares me. Am I hoping and praying that it will turn out right? You bet I am. It doesn't matter if I am on the government side or on the Opposition side, I was put here to represent people, and when they hurt I hurt, and when they do good then I do good, because I am from their area, I am one of them. I am not a parachute. I grew up on the coast, like many other people who are here, and we have to have concern about them. When I see that it might not materialize into what we were thinking that it would materialize into, and not half of the people or a quarter of the people would get a job, does that concern me? You bet it does.

When I look across to Fortune - that is not my district - and when I look at people in Marystown - they are not in my district - they are people. In over a year, FPI have really, in a sense, let 40 million pounds of fish stay in the water and people in Marystown and Fortune who really need work have not been able to get it. There is something wrong. The company really, in a sense, have ransomed the people on the Burin Peninsula, and that is not right. I am not saying that anybody here in this Legislature can change that - that is not what I am saying - but it is not right for a company like FPI to ransom the people.

I heard one of the people, John Risley from FPI, say: We don't care if we get a contract or not with the people in Marystown. We are not coming back -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) .

MR. LANGDON: John, I think it was.

He said: I don't care if we get a contract with the people in Harbour Breton or not. We are not going back unless you change and scrap the FPI Act.

Now, does it make a difference to me, as an individual, or the people in Harbour Breton? No, because they have moved out. Does it make a difference to the people in Marystown? Indeed it does, and it concerns me. Really, it does concern me, and you talk about the poverty and the situation in the Province.

I will tell you what is really hurtful - and there is not one person on either side of the House who does not feel the same way as I do. Am I appreciate of the fact that this government, and when we were in government, put in the job creation money so that people could get their stamps? Absolutely. Will I take every dollar? Absolutely. Am I grateful for the number of dollars that the minister gave me? Yes, I am. That is not the point.

What is being paid? What is the rate. It is $6.75 an hour. Just think about it, how much EI you are going to get on that for every two weeks; $200. Think about it, ladies and gentlemen. Think about our own situation, members here in the House. How many of us could live on $200 a week? It can't happen. That is the whole thing about what we are seeing here; there is something wrong with the picture.

Was I a member of government for seventeen and a half years? Yes, I was. Did we do everything right? No, we didn't. Is this government going to do everything right? No, they are not. The thing about it is, it doesn't lessen the responsibility that we as legislators in the House have, to put forward that particular theme, that particular idea. If nobody picks it up, then obviously we will be disappointed. The people, at the end of the day, will suffer for it. Really, the point has been there, and that really bothers me.

Let me give you an example about education. I have said in the House before - and I am sure many members here say: Oh, no, you are not going to say that again. Do you know what? I was privileged as a young person to get free tuition, and get $100 a month to go to university. I know that I had to go back to some isolated community or some small community to pay my penance for that, but I got it.

Here is a situation of a young fellow, who I heard only recently about, living here in the Mount Pearl area. He was making $40,000 a year. That is good money. Do you know what he cleared? He cleared $20,000. Do you know the first thing he had to do out of that $20,000? He had to pay a student loan of $600 a month - $600 a month! - so you are down to $14,000. Then you have to pay for your rent and your heat and your light, another $600. Then you are down to $8,000. You have a car and your gas and insurance. That is another $3,000 or $4,000. You have no groceries bought yet. That is a young guy just graduated from university. Do you think he is going to be a person who is going to stay in the house for seven days a week and not go outside? Absolutely not. These are the problems we are confronted with.

I said here in the House not too long ago, obviously, in the City of St. John's and surrounding areas we do have people who are hurting. I had an opportunity with the Salvation Army to go to downtown ministries on a Friday night a couple of times, and I am telling you I was really, really surprised with the number of people who were there looking for help. It would surprise you, the people who are homeless, the people who have nowhere to go. The thing about it was, when you see the people and you think about your own family and you think about how fortunate you are that they were, in a sense, well taken care of, that does not lessen the hurt, that does not lessen the responsibility, that does not lessen the concern for people who are there. All of us have seen it and this is why, in a sense, when we talk about these things, that really causes me some concern.

I think it was yesterday in the House - and I do not say a lot back and forth; sometimes I say a few words across the House, but not a lot - we were talking about the pensions, the teachers' pensions, and somebody said: Oh, yes, we found that in quite a mess. You know, we had to fix it.

Just let me give you a bit of an idea. That started in 1949 when Joey Smallwood started to borrow from the pension plan to do roads and schools and everything else. Do you know who else followed it? The late Premier Moores did, and so did Premier Peckford. I was on that side of the House when Neil Windsor, who was the Member for Mount Pearl at the time, and the Minister of Finance, do you know what he said in the House? I don't have it, but I can get it in Hansard. He said: Yes, I did it and I am proud of it. We borrowed from the pension plan for general revenue.

Do you know who stopped it? Clyde Wells did. He stopped it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Indeed he did. You go back and look. He stopped the borrowing from the pension plan.

The Member for Mount Pearl doesn't believe it. Go back into history yourself. I am not saying something that is not true. If it is, I will apologize. That is the truth of the matter. So, over all those years that you were taking from the plan and you were not putting anything back in, what happened to it? I recognize that. We were not paying enough. As a teacher, we were not paying enough. I realize that. We were paying 3 per cent into the pension plan, and as a married person you would put in 4 per cent when I started out first. The plan could not sustain itself. That had nothing to do with Members in the House of Assembly. Then it went to 7 per cent and 8 per cent, and I am not sure what it is today. Now, I guess, it is on a footing, but that is the situation. So, you do some things and obviously you want to make life better for the people who are there.

Talking about your own district, that is what I want to do here for a couple of minutes with one more example. One of the things we did before the last election - it was in the spring, I think, of 2003. Those of you who have gone to Bay d'Espoir and seen the clinic in Bay d'Espoir, it was really, really small and really cumbersome, and the doctors and nurses there could not do their work. We issued a contract to have that done back in 2003. Do you know what? The architectural engineer passed away with an aneurysm before the work was done, and by the time that particular situation was rectified - the contract was called but it was never awarded. It was a month before the election was called and the Premier of the day said: We are not going to do it. Guess what? I am pleased that it happened. I was with the Minister of Health not too long ago when he went back into Bay d'Espoir and he said: We are going to do the project. We are going to do it, because it is needed. I recognized that it was needed and he recognized that it was needed, but it took three years. It has been three years with the doctors being in an inadequate facility. That is not the type of thing that should happen. It shouldn't!

Am I ever grateful that it is done now? You bet I am. It might not benefit me personally, but what it will do is benefit the people who are in Bay d'Espoir. Every community in Bay d'Espoir from Conne River to St. Alban's agreed with it and sent a petition and said they were in favour of it being done in St. Alban's. That, in itself, it not always easy to do, but they did agree for that to happen.

One of the other things: As a student - and I had the fortune of having three children go to university and know the cost that is involved with that. I was listening this morning to the vice-principal of Corner Brook, and this is what is happening to many of our young students who are finding it very, very difficult to go to university because of the cost of it, and their families on low or medium income.

This young student from Corner Brook, when she went to the principal's office, he said: How come your homework is not done, how come you don't have your term papers done on time? She said: Sir, it is because I am working. He said: How long are you working? Are you working for eight hours? Are you working for ten? What are you working? She said: I am working forty hours a week. Now, tell me: A kid who is in high school or post-secondary who is working forty hours a week can't do justice to their particular studies. That concerns me as well, because the very foundation on which all of this works, every one of us here, is education. It starts in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, up to Level III, and then in university and our post-secondary institutions where it goes afterwards.

All of that, the whole fabric of the society in which we find ourselves, education is the key. Once you have an education it opens up the doors for people, whether they want to work in trades of if they want to become professionals. The choice is theirs.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I want to talk about, a point that relates to that, is: Where would the government be without Hibernia? Where would it be without Terra Nova and White Rose and Voisey's Bay?

Now, when you realize that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I don't know. The Minister of Finance could tell me how much these four projects brought to the government this year. I bet it is over $1 billion. Where would it be without it?

I think one of the disappointments for people, and I am not saying it to put down members opposite, that is not my point, but I tell you that one of the big disappointments in this area, in the St. John's area, was when Hebron-Ben Nevis did not go ahead. It had a major impact on this region because, I tell you, a lot of the young engineers were here and they were ready to set up shop. The Hebron-Ben Nevis and Chevron people had their offices already in the Scotia Centre downtown. When it did not happen you had some people, particularly the young people, taking off and going to other parts of the country. That did concern me, because if there had been a continuity taking place then these young people would not have had to leave and there would have been others coming in to take their place. That concerns me. That is very, very important for us.

Again, the thing about it is, my own father, who was a logger until he retired at sixty-five years of age - I think about the people who are affiliated with the Stephenville mill, and the fact that it is closed. It is not in my district, but am I concerned about it? Sure I am. Any person, in any district that any of us represents, when they lose their job and they lose their income and it means a lowering of their socio-economic standard then it does concern me, and it should concern all of us, because really in a sense we are here - and I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude very, very shortly - and the fact is that all of us, regardless of where we are, on whatever side of the House we are on, we are here for one thing, and that is to improve the quality of life for the people in this Province. If we lose that, then obviously we lose the very vision of why we are here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last number of days I have heard the Opposition talk about what this government has not done. Well, Mr. Speaker, what I am going to talk to you about today is what this government has done.

The hon. member just spoke and talked about tuition, or the debt load of students. I am glad he brought that up, because one of the things that affects debt load is tuition. Mr. Speaker, since we got in here as government there has been a tuition freeze.

MR. REID: Yes, and we lowered it for three years.

MR. DENINE: And increased it by 25 per cent.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition said: We lowered it. Do you know what they did? They lowered it, but they did not go back to the original cost. They still increased it by 20 per cent. The lowered it, say, from 40 per cent down to 25 per cent, but there is still a 25 per cent increase, so don't get fooled, that they lowered it. They didn't lower it; they just didn't go back to where the original cost of tuition was. So, the fallacy that they lowered it is simply not true.

The other thing on this, I happened to be off the Island and I ran into a young lady who was serving me at a store, and she said: Where are you from? I said: I am from Newfoundland and Labrador. She said: Oh, I go to MUN - and she was in Atlantic Canada. I said to her: Why are you going to Memorial University? Mr. Speaker, quote, unquote, here is what she said: I'm going to MUN because it has the lowest tuition around. I can save money by going to MUN and still pay my board and still save money.

So, when you are talking about debt ratio, or debt load to students, tuition is one of those things and we, as a government, can sit here and be very proud of the fact that is has been frozen for four years; four years at its level when we came in. It is at that level and never moved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also mentioned the teachers' pensions fund, and I agree with him. What happened was, they were taking the teachers' pensions fund and other pensions fund and using them for capital roadwork, et cetera, and it went on. He mentioned that other people did this, and so many people did this, but the point here is this: We stopped it. We stopped that. We have now replenished the pensions of the teachers' fund that would have run out in 2014. So, no longer is it the practice - when they were in government and previous governments. We stopped it. We stopped it, and no longer is that going to happen. There is no way we are taking money out of any pensions fund and putting it into roadwork.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance mentioned the other day that we are now borrowing to refurbish or replenish the pensions fund for public services. I think it was $400 million, I believe, the amount of money was. That is a very positive thing. So, it is no longer; it has stopped. It continued while they were in government, but I can tell you right now it is not continuing while we are in government.

Another thing, Hebron-Ben Nevis, the hon. member mentioned Hebron-Ben Nevis, how the negotiations broke down. The only question I ask is: Are we to proceed knowing that we are going to give it away? Is that the thought we need to be in? Is that the thought we need to take? Is that the philosophy we need to do? The answer to that, Mr. Speaker: This government has clearly stated, no more giveaways. No more giveaways!

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: The hon. Member for L'Anse au Clair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: No more giveaways! Now, I must have hit a nerve, I had to hit a nerve, because they are all upset over there.

Mr. Speaker, they also talk about poverty reduction. I am very proud of what we have done in poverty reduction. Mr. Speaker, they will come and mention this and this and this that we haven't done. Have we covered all our bases? The answer to that is no. Are we going to continue to strive for that? The answer is yes. What have we done? Mr. Speaker, no provincial income tax if you are a single person earning $12,000 and under. None! No income tax for a family -

MR. REID: Wow!

MS JONES: Oh, wow!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DENINE: I must have hit another nerve, Mr. Speaker. I had to hit another nerve.

No income tax for a family up to $14,000. Mr. Speaker, then it is partial for other scales on that. They kind of laugh at that over there. There are times it seems to be funny. I looked at it as putting money into the pockets of people who need it. Isn't that part of poverty reduction, Mr. Speaker? I ask you: Isn't that an active role that we should be taking? The answer to that is, very simply, yes.

Mr. Speaker, home heating fuel rebate: The Finance Minister spoke that, our government will be coming in with something soon, he has brought something to Cabinet. What did we do? Now, I am not going to compare what we did to what they did, because what we are doing is substantially more than what they did, four times as much. Mr. Speaker, not only did we increase the limit - it was down to a family making $20,000 that got the home fuel rebate.

Now, Mr. Skinner - Mr. Speaker. I just called him Mr. Skinner. I am sorry, you are just so like my hon. colleague from St. John's Centre. Mr. Speaker, what we have done here, we have made it so that people making as much as $30,000 are allowed to get so much refund, and that is a minimum of $100. If you are on the lower part, it is a maximum of $400. Mr. Speaker, that is substantial. Each one of them over there, if they were to look at the rebates when they were in government, they would have to say the answer - are we doing more for that? - the answer if very simple: Yes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with people who are in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, we are charging rent geared to income. What was happening before, when the client received their cheque in the mail, from whatever it may be, they had to pay pension, Canada Pension, unemployment and other things, and then they were left with a net. Now, before, the rent geared to income was based on gross, but do you know what we did? We took away that gross and we put it on the net income, which makes it more realistic, because net income is how much money a person puts in his or her pocket. There are 1,200 people out there benefitting from that move. If that is not doing something for poverty reduction, I do not know what is.

MR. JOYCE: Sit down, boy!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bay of Islands is really getting upset over there. He was nice to me a while ago but, I don't know, I think the niceties of the Christmas season just left him.

MR. JOYCE: Sit him down!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, another thing that we have done, we are now just introducing - and the Minister of Health and Community Services mentioned it the other day - the Prescription Drug Plan. Ninety-seven thousand people will now be able to avail of that, of low-income families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, that helps out people of low income. I tell you now, they may criticize it but talk to the 97,000 people out there who are going to avail of this service. Talk to them; see what they think of it. I can tell you, they will be very pleased that it happened. Now, they will come and say: Well, you have not done this or that. Maybe we have not, but we get there. You only get there one step at a time. I think we have taken an awful lot to steps to help reduce poverty in this country and in this Province.

We have written Reducing Poverty: An Action Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador - and that is what we have. We have an action plan. We did not sit back on our laurels and expect the plan to gather dust on a shelf in someone's department. We are taking positive, active and a proactive role in making it happen.

Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on. Let me get into the health part. What we have done in health? Mr. Speaker, six new dialysis machines that help different areas of this Province, where people have to travel a long distance. Number two, Mr. Speaker, two new cancer clinics opened up in Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander, where, if we had to follow the previous policy, we would only have one. What is the best bang for your buck? I tell you, that is the best bang for your buck.

We put in new drugs that were not covered for Alzheimer's, breast cancer drugs not covered. We put in a dental program that cost almost $4.3 million for kids to go and visit a dentist. What does that do? Well, healthy teeth - health individuals make a healthy Province, Mr. Speaker, and we are taking steps. So, to stay that we have sat back on our laurels and done nothing is totally incorrect.

Now, they will probably come after me, after I sit down, and say: Well, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl didn't say this about his government, didn't cover this about his government. Do you know something? Some of them may be right, but we have covered an awful lot of bases in such a short time. We have taken the bull by the horn and we are not going to just sit back to say: Well, we have a problem, let someone else solve it.

We have not sat back. We have taken a very proactive approach and said: Look, we are going to solve it. We are the ones who are going to take ownership. It is our issue, it is our provincial issue, it has become our issue, and we need to do that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some members on the opposite side have said: Well, you have done very little for poverty reduction. Mr. Speaker, I spoke here on poverty reduction and, I tell you, to say what we have done for poverty reduction, I am proud of it. Now, are there places to go? Yes, most certainly, and we will get there.

Someone mentioned in the House of Assembly last week: Well, why would we throw our $2 billion down on the debt? Why would we do that? Well, it saved us money. My colleague just mentioned, it saved us money. That allows us to direct that money into other areas, especially in poverty reduction. So, that was a wise strategy of this government.

I said it before, I shudder to think if the former government had to be in there, what they would have done with the $2 billion. Mr. Speaker, do you know something? I bet you dollars to donuts we would probably be in a deficit position right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gone.

MR. DENINE: Totally gone.

Mr. Speaker, these things have happened and we have certainly taken a proactive approach.

One other thing I want to mention here is tourism. The budget, I believe, when we came in, in tourism, was around $6 million. Mr. Speaker, today we are up to $10 million, and that is almost double. Now, what does that do? What does that do for the economy out there? The more people you bring in, the more money businesses will make, the more people are employed, the more people are paying taxes and they are much happier. That is what we have done. We have done that as a strategy, and we have followed through on the strategies. That is the key here. I am sure that is what is happening over there, that is what is happening on the other side. The word is strategy, and the other one is following through on your strategies. That is what they do not understand. Doing a report and following through on the report, that is what they do not understand.

So, Mr. Speaker, what have we done? Yes, we have reduced the student debt load by freezing tuition. Yes, we have made strides in poverty reduction, but again they will get up and point out other areas. Mr. Speaker, as our government continues on, we will do other things. We will do other things very, very positive.

Mr. Speaker, this year on the Trans-Canada - I want to get into the roads, because the last time I was up I never got a chance to get into it, and the Minister of Transportation has spoken about this time and time again - we put $60 million into the Trans-Canada, provincial roads. Sixty million dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Another $4.5 million since, for overruns and other things we want to do. Then this government put $70 million into the Trans-Canada. Seventy million dollars. Now, what does that do? Number one, you have a lot of people working on the roads. We captured the whole construction season.

Do you know what the Minister of Transportation told us one time? We ran out of asphalt tar. The Province ran out of asphalt tar because we put so much down that they could not keep up with the supplies. Mr. Speaker, in one way it is really sad, but the other way it is great because the thing is, we must have done an awful lot of paving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: I tell you, we did an awful lot of paving.

Now, by paving the roads, look at the amount of construction hours for people who worked. I cannot give you the exact figures, but it must be enormous with $140 million of roadwork. It had to be enormous, because it all doesn't go back to the contractor. It filters down through, to the workers, and again what do the workers do? They spend their money. They make the money and spend it.

The member over there is looking at me and nodding his head. I am glad you agree with that. He has been nodding his head since I started to speak, so obviously he really agrees with everything I have said here today, and he will get a chance to get up and speak.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the conditions of the roads, what we had when we came in this office, and look at the roads now, it is a substantial improvement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: I get people telling me that.

Mr. Speaker, are there roads out there that need to be paved now, as we speak? The answer to that, again, is yes. Are we going to stop there? No. Because we put this money, does that mean next year there is no pavement going to be put down? On the contrary, it will be improved again.

Now, if we did not have to be saddled with the lack of input in infrastructure of the roads in the previous thirteen years before we got here, we would have been able to take that $140 million and do more on poverty reduction, but what did we have to do? We had to correct the errors or the sins - I shouldn't say sins, because it is a bit... - correct the errors of judgement of the previous Administration.

Now, that is not the only place that we corrected the errors. In school construction - and I think the hon. member, the critic for education, might get up and talk about this. He might talk about the leaky roofs that we inherited. He might talk about the (inaudible) that we have inherited, but did we sit back and say no to those schools? The answer to that is no, we have worked proactively in doing that. We put almost, I think, $40 million into that. The roofs we put in, I remember the Treasury person at education saying, I think, it equates to something like seven or eight football fields or more. Think about that, the number of leaky roofs we had.

The first year we were in here - and they talked about duct tape, and they talked about our minister talking about duct tape. If they go back and look at a film of duct tape, there was a school not too far away that had one of the vents done with duct tape, so duct tape was not invented by this Administration. They must have used it in the previous one, too. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a universal thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, we have attacked that. In the first year, or a couple we were in, we put $16 million into the envelopes of the schools. Again, we are not where we want to be but we are striving to do that. The thing here, and the thing the people of the Province have to understand, or listen to what I am saying, is: Do we have a long ways to go? Yes, we do. Have we come from our beginning to now a long ways? Yes, we have, and we will continue to do that because, Mr. Speaker, this government has been intent on two things: No more giveaways, and let's take a proactive approach in the problems that arise - and that is what we have done. So, our record will speak for itself and it will speak very positively.

We talked about health care, roads, education, debt load and poverty reduction. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention poverty reduction because some people come in here and want to take ownership as they are the ones who are going to reduce poverty. Mr. Speaker, we have done it. We have taken it. We wrote the book, Mr. Speaker. This is our plan, and if you want it - I know I am not allowed to hold up things, but this is the thing, Mr. Speaker. This is written in stone and we are following it. Our poverty reduction is a real and workable policy and has realistic goals and realistic targets to match. We have done that, Mr. Speaker. What more can I say?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

It gives me pleasure to stand and, I guess, like all other members, have a few words to say about Bill 60, even though I did not hear much about it from my former colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl.

Before I get into that, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Port de Grave District and would appreciate it if members would co-operate so we can hear the speech that he is about to address.

The hon. the member.

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

I assume all the noise is coming from the other side because it is very lonely over here.

Mr. Speaker, before I make my few comments, I want to say that I guess we are really in the true Christmas spirit this evening, because outside of this building our constituents from around this Province are kicking off the Christmas season with the lighting of a tree, and here we are, in here, the Government House Leader not only asking us to work beyond 5:00 o'clock or beyond the hour of 10:00 o'clock but to work straight through suppertime. I have never seen the like before, Mr. Speaker. So much for the Christmas spirit.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this Bill 60, it references here in clause 2, what it is about is where the federal Universal Child Care Benefit, once that is brought in, it will not affect the low-income tax reduction here in the Province for those people.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that is a welcomed change, but then again I guess we have to size up the situation that many people find themselves in, and I cannot help but quote from the Speech from the Throne, March 15, 2005, nearly two years ago, where it says:

In this beautiful life

there is always some sorrow

It's a double-edged sword

but there's always tomorrow

It's up to you if you sink or swim

Keep the faith and your ship will come in.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, for thousands of people around this Province, two years have gone by but I can assure you their ship has not come in yet; and I could not believe but continue on with the comments that were made by my hon. colleague from Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune when he spoke about the health care issues.

I go back to my own area, which covers not only the District of Port de Grave but Harbour Main-Whitbourne, Carbonear and Harbour Grace, Trinity-Bay de Verde, and the problems that we encounter with the shortage of general practitioners. I can speak for my own area, where we have four or five clinics in the smaller communities, and how difficult it is to keep general practitioners, even in that area, and we live so close in proximity to the St. John's area. Many people - as a matter of fact, my next door neighbour, in order to see a general practitioner, had to travel here to Mount Pearl because his doctor left that area.

Only last week we heard the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace bring up the issue about 1,700 people in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde who will soon be without, if they are not already without, a general practitioner, and it is causing a tremendous strain on the health care system, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you, when those people cannot get in touch with their own general practitioner, or their other clinics are closed and they cannot go anywhere else, they all head to the emergency unit at Carbonear Hospital. That is what is happening, and the people who work there, I can assure you, are overworked as well.

I also think about when we travelled the Province this summer and met with people in various areas. One of the major concerns they had was the health care system. I remember being on the Northern Peninsula when we met with people at the hospital in St. Anthony and they expressed their concerns. Sure, there are good things happening, but they have major concerns - the nurses and all the other people who were there.

I met with the nurses in the Carbonear Hospital recently and, I can tell you, when they voted on their contract, no doubt they voted 70 per cent. That is not one of the highest numbers I have ever seen when anyone voted on a contract, but I can tell you they have major concerns as well. One of the major concerns they have - it was not financial - is with regard to the retention of nurses. They are telling us that within the next ten to twelve years many of the nurses in the system today will be at the age of retiring and they know there are people not coming behind them because a lot of them are leaving our Province for the bigger wages in other areas of our country.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune read a letter that he received probably only today about what is happening with health care. I go back to my own area again, to the Carbonear Hospital, and I saw this first-hand over the past couple of weeks. On one particular floor with twenty-one patients, there were two nurses on duty in the evenings. If one of them had to go for a snack or a lunch, there was one person left on that floor. I saw that with my own eyes when I was visiting constituents. It is happening all the time. Some evenings when there are three people there it does not mean a row of beans the other way, because if an emergency comes in down on the ground floor the superior nurse there has to leave and go down to emergency unit.

We talk about health care - and, like I said, no doubt, probably in St. John's the numbers of those medical people are on the rise and probably people are moving here. Back about a year-and-a-half ago, I brought up a situation here in this House where I said that doctors were leaving Carbonear Hospital, they were going to leave. All I was doing was spreading rumours, just putting fears into people's minds, but I can assure you - and even those two doctors wrote articles in the local paper and said that was not happening, the floor would not close.

I can tell you, for quite a while that floor closed down because there was not enough staff there to look after it, and in particular the doctors. The two doctors in question, one of them called me at that time. I can guarantee you, when I call him back, he was not long admitting that, yes, he was leaving the Province for better paying positions in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, we not only talk about health care; we talk about education. I know if you listened to the hon. member opposite when he was up, the Member for Mount Pearl, it is almost like nothing happened with regard to schools or education in this Province only going back a little over three years ago.

I want to remind the hon. member that the former Administration, over a four-year period, spent $300 million on new school construction, renovations, maintenance and what have you. I can list some of the schools for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I understand that there were no new schools built in this Province, if you listen to the hon. member, only the ones that have been done over the last three years. I ask him to travel to Old Perlican, travel to Blaketown.

MR. HEDDERSON: You should have built them right.

MR. BUTLER: The former Minister of Education says, we should have built them right. I am sure, when I am finished -

MR. HEDDERSON: Talk about the mold problem now.

MR. BUTLER: You talk about the mold problem, is right, and the mold problem should be dealt with and not covered up. I have called upon your minister on several occasions, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Port de Grave, and I do believe that other people are in competition with him. The Chair certainly wants to recognize the member and invite him to continue his speech and ask all other members to hear the gentleman in relative silence.

The hon. the member.

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

I guess, from time to time, there is nothing wrong with a good bit of competition. We all encounter that from time to time.

I will go on with my list, Mr. Speaker: Travel to the community of Blaketown, a new school that was built under the former administration; Burgeo; Arnold's Cove; New World Island; Roddickton; Goose Bay; Makkovik; Rigolet; and there are probably others, Mr. Speaker, plus the renovations that were done to schools. Why I am saying that - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Plum Point.

MR. BUTLER: Plum Point, another new school. Way to go, brother!

Why I am saying this, Mr. Speaker - if you listen to our former speaker there was nothing done with education.

MR. HEDDERSON: How many did you close?

MR. BUTLER: The former Minister of Education, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, wants to know how many did we close. It is the very gentleman who stood in this House when he was in Opposition and said: One teacher out of the schools is one too many. I am going to tell you when they took 300 or 400 teachers out, he got over and he applauded. He applauded when the teachers were taken out of the schools, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you that.

I have called upon the Minister of Education to do the right thing, to put the money forward. She says she knows which schools in this Province have those hazardous problems. She knows them. If she knows them, release the names of them to the public so that the teachers and the students will know which schools may be a hazard to their children. We know there have been four or five identified and they have been closed. I ask the minister to do the honourable thing, to make sure that she steps forward to make the funds available to see that this happens.

Mr. Speaker, this government talks about being fiscally responsible and that is all fine. It is all fine to balance that budget, but I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the social programs should not be effected. I do not think that is good policy, Mr. Speaker.

I will give you an example, and I will go back to the issue that happened over two years ago, when many of the human resources and labour and employment offices closed around this Province. People think it was only just a building closed down, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is more than that. People's lives were effected by it. I have cases, and I am sure the members opposite have had cases, were people - the services may still be available, but they are placed at a disadvantage because they are not living close to where they were.

A prime example in my area: There was an office in Bay Roberts, it closed down and they moved to the Carbonear office. Now, Mr. Speaker, the majority of the staff or the services that they provided - you have to either travel to St. John's or try to contact someone by phone and find out the necessary services that are available.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I believe the key to rural Newfoundland and Labrador is our fishery. It was and it will always be. Many areas of our Province are hurting at the present time because of the issues in relation to our fishery. I guess many of the issues, nobody can control or correct the problems that are there. When we visited many areas this summer, people were leaving in great numbers to move outside of our Province, not because they wanted to go, they had no other choice. Mr. Speaker, only recently we saw massive numbers of people travel here to St. John's, and the figures were huge. Somewhere around 9,000 people came in to seek employment in another part of our great country of Canada. I know the government cannot stop all of this, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are things that can be done to help those people.

We talk about rural Newfoundland, and in order for rural Newfoundland to survive, Mr. Speaker, I believe that more has to be done with regards to dealing with the federal government in relation to our fishery. We talk about custodial management, and on doubt work has been done down that road but it is far from completed, Mr. Speaker; far from completed. The member opposite mentioned on several occasions the good that has been done. I have said it before, there hasn't been a government since Confederation that hasn't done some good in this Province.

We talk about the food banks and the lineups that are there and how many people are living in poverty, and the Member for Mount Pearl went into that issue about what has to be done and the tax reduction that was given to a family making less than $1l,000. Can you imagine what has to be done to get that family making that minimum amount of $11,000 up to what is required here in this immediate area, when the cutoff for someone living below the poverty line is in the vicinity of $27,000 to $28,000.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the spending of money and being prudent with money. It was brought up here in the hon. House today about the sign just outside of our building here. They say it is two four by eight sheets and six by six posts. I don't know what type of plywood it is, I don't know what types of posts they are, and I don't know what dug the two holes in the ground, but to me to cost twenty-plus thousand dollars is a little much.

I noticed in the publication of contracts reported by government funded bodies without tender invitations. There was one, Mr. Speaker, from Executive Council. It was a private dinner when the Canadian Premiers were here only recently, a total of $10,567. On the end of it, it said, the initial quote was $8,602, but it was subject to change based on consumption. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the additional consumption was, whether it was the dinner rolls they had with the meal or the meal itself or the drinks that went with it, but there was a total of $1,965 that went over. When I see things like this, Mr. Speaker - and I know the members opposite will say, oh, this happened when you were there or this happened when someone else was there, but when you are in power the time comes when you have to stand on your own two feet. Whatever it is, mold in the schools, whether it is overspending on issues like this, you are responsible for it.

Mr. Speaker, when we come to talking about the issues in relation to education, no doubt there are many good things happening in education, but I think about the busing issue this year, the one point six. That is something that has been on the books for many, many years, but it was never, ever implemented, and this year it came in. I know in my area, there were changes made, additional buses had to be put on because the system that was put in place could not be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, when you bring up those issues you are usually being looked at that you are being critical, you are taking someone's name in vain or personally, but that is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. When you are elected to this Honourable House, if there is an issue that you receive from your constituents, regardless of what it is, it is each and everyone of us, our responsibility, to see that we do what we believe is best for the people who we serve.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the fishery and the custodial management. There are other issues when it comes to the fishery, and we have seen what happened with regards to the Raw Material Sharing. I am not putting blame to anyone.

MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.

MR. BUTLER: The minister is over there saying yeah. I am not going to say anything out of the way about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: The former Minister of Fisheries, I think, said yes. Maybe he was talking to his hon. colleague. Regardless, at that point in time, regardless of how it came about, the Raw Material Sharing, I just want to touch on the basis of how it effected our people, the fishers, the plant workers, the harvesters in this Province. They were going through a very, very difficult time. I have to say, I never saw it before up until this summer when you saw a channel on television asking, looking for, deck hands to go to work on a boat or looking for people to work in our plants. I do not think it was ever seen before in this Province, because we were dependent on the fishery and no doubt it is going to be our future. That stock has to be protected, Mr. Speaker.

Getting back to the fishery again, no doubt it is the lifeblood. Mr. Speaker, I know you are giving me a signal, I appreciate that, but I have to say that when we represent our people, whether they work in the plants or the harvesters or what have you, those people are very hard working individuals, and I believe they deserve better. It is sad to see those people have to leave their homes because of a down turn in the fishery, regardless of what happened, and know that they have to travel outside of the Province, away from their families, a place where they do not want to be, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I will close and give someone else an opportunity.

Thank you very much.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to this bill with concerns that I speak about and continue to have. I think that this week, in particular, we need to be thinking about women in this Province, women and their children. This is the week, yesterday, that we had the national day recognizing violence against women. We can talk about that and we can say it is horrible and we can deplore the fact that women are abused, beaten, physically assaulted and sexually assaulted by men, in the most part whom they are either living with or whom they know. Women are also brutally murdered by these same men, and it is horrible and we can feel that horror.

Certainly anybody who was at the memorial service last night - and I am not saying this against the members of the House. I understand that both parties had events on last night, both the Liberals and the government side of the House. So, I am not saying this to say nobody was there. I understand why you weren't. I do want to say for people who were at that memorial service, even seventeen years later people are there crying at the thought of what happened to these fourteen women because they were women. Once again, I cried myself last night; every time I go to one of these services.

We need to remember that the majority of women who are assaulted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We need to remember that the majority of women who are assaulted, who are beaten, who are murdered, the majority of them are women who are living in circumstances over which they have very little control, women who do not have the resources to get out of the situation that they are in. Sometimes they may be in a city where there is a shelter they can go to, like here in St. John's or in Corner Brook or even in a town like Marystown, but very often they don't have access to those shelters. Even when they do have access to the shelters, it is very difficult for a woman who is being dominated by a man in a family situation and being assaulted by him to feel the freedom to even be able to go to the shelters, because she is under such fear.

These things are going to continue as long as there are no options for women. Women right now in this Province are among the poorest of the poor. The majority of people living in poverty are single mothers and their children. The majority of people going to food banks are single parents with their children. For the most part those are women with their children. Women do not have universal access to child care. Women are the majority of home care workers in our Province, working for $7 an hour. Women are the majority of home support workers in our Province, some of them working for $7 an hour, some working at the minimum wage itself, which at the moment is only $6.75 as we know. Women are in the lowest paid jobs in this Province.

As long as we do not have equality for women, women will continue to be in violent situations. I always get concerned when we can feel the terribleness of violence, when we can feel how awful it is for a woman to be murdered by a partner, but we cannot feel the same horror when it comes to the poverty in which these women are living; we cannot feel the same horror when we hear about women having to go to women's shelters and women's centres in order to get food for their children, in order to get clothing, in order, at Christmas time, to be able to give their children a bit of a treat and let them feel that at least they can celebrate Christmas; and we do not think it is horrible that women are in homes working for $6.75 an hour taking care of elderly people, taking care of chronically ill people, that some of these women are working fifty and sixty and seventy hours a week in order to make enough money.

I am just going to use my own personal situation to give you an idea. My mother is bedridden and we have home care. Last March we had a bit of a crisis because one of her home care workers was hospitalized. That home care workers works with an agency but the agency could not come up with anybody qualified for me. Over a five-day period they kept sending people who were not qualified to take care of my mother.

One of the women who came to take care of my mother one morning told me that she lived in St. John's for one month. I said: I see. What did you do before you came to St. John's? Well, she worked in a fish plant, but a fish plant that was no longer open in a community that had no employment for her. She said: I am here, my dear, and I am trying to make a bit of money. I said to her: Well, have you had any training for the job? Her answer was: Oh, no. Like, what do you mean? I said: Well, before the agency sent you out, had they given you any training to deal with a woman who is bedridden? Her answer was: Oh, no, my dear, sure I don't need any training, I have taken care of children. Now, you can imagine how I felt, having to go to work that morning leaving my mother with a woman who desperately needed work - it wasn't the woman's fault - but thinking that taking care of a bedridden eighty-seven year old woman with systemic rheumatoid arthritis, who cannot do anything for herself, not even feed herself, that was the same as taking care of children. That is the situation that we are in. I don't blame that woman.

The thing I want to further talk about is, while I was in that situation I then was desperate, as you can see why, to come up with somebody who was qualified. I called different agencies who may have lists of names, and I called the Senior Resource Centre and they could give me a list of some names. I went through that list and one of the women I called said to me: I am available. I said: Can you tell me the hours when you are available? Well, she was available at eight o'clock in the morning to come in after she had worked all night at one of the institutions here in the city. Her pay is so low that this woman, whom I didn't hire because I got somebody else who actually didn't have a job at all, is so desperate that she is holding down a full-time job in one of the senior citizens' homes in this city and then has her name on a list willing to come to work at eight o'clock when she leaves that institute in order to continue working for the morning so that she can make enough money.

That is the kind of thing I am talking about. When we are talking about somebody working for $7.00 an hour, whether it is a single person completely on his or her own, or whether it is somebody with a partner, people working for $6.75 or $7.00 an hour are having to hold down, not one job, not two jobs, but in some cases three jobs; desperate to find enough money, to put enough money together, so that they can give to themselves and their families what they need.

Now, the majority of people living in that kind of situation are women. Unless we really seriously look at the issues that face women with regard to lack of equality in our society, then those same women are going to be women who are beaten, who are abused, and in some cases who are murdered. We know that we don't have every one of these women being murdered, but I would say to the House and to my colleagues - and I hope you would agree - that having one woman murdered by a partner who feels he has control over her is one woman too many. We shouldn't be having anybody being murdered. The fact that somebody in our society can think that is okay, that frightens the life out of me.

This week, as we think about women and as we think about the situation of women in our society, in our Province, in our country, we have to do it with realistic eyes, not with bleeding hearts. That is what I am afraid happens. That is why - and take this right - if we focus totally on violence it is easy to do that with a bleeding heart. It is like if we focus on child poverty. It is easy to do that with a bleeding heart too: Oh, I don't want to see children poor. Well, why are children poor? Children are poor because the families they are in do not have enough income. Either they don't have enough income because income support is not high enough when it comes to real money, either they are poor because the family they are in, the parents, are working for minimum wage, or they are in a family where maybe a parent has a disability and can't work. Children are not poor in a vacuum, children are poor as part of families that make up our society.

We can't talk about child poverty and we are going to get rid of child poverty, unless we are talking about what we are doing for the adults in this society. What are we doing for those who are working? What are we doing for those who can't work? What are we doing with regard to income for them so they have real money? I really get so tired when I hear people talking about child poverty, we are going to eradicate child poverty by this date or by that date or by another date, but don't look at raising the minimum wage, for example. I have no patience with it whatsoever. I can go insane when I hear that kind of language, because that is not the way we are going to be able to deal with it.

I had somebody in my office this morning who was telling me about two children who live three houses down from her, and how in the particular school that those kids go to in this woman's community they have a breakfast program two mornings a week. There are mornings that these two children go into the school and go up to the principal and say: Sir, is this the morning we can have breakfast? Is this the morning we can have breakfast! These kids do not get breakfast in their own home, this woman knows that, and these kids are so hungry that for two days running a couple of months ago all they had to eat, for two whole days, as told me by this woman and as she put it, was raw tea. In others words, tea with no milk in it even. These kids ate that for two days. She and her partner found out the kids were hungry and brought them into their home and fed them. This is the reality out there.

When we talk about wanting a breakfast program for every school, there is a reason for wanting that breakfast program for every school and not just some schools. There is a reason for going outreach by government to communities to see how government can facilitate a full breakfast program. This woman cried when she talked to me about these two children going to the principal and saying: Sir, is this the morning that we get breakfast?

We are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not talking about some of the countries that I have visited in this world, like countries in Central America, countries in Southern Africa, countries that we call developing countries. This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about our Province.

I know we have always had those realities. I taught for twelve and a half years, and I taught in parts of the Province where we had families with maybe eight children, and maybe a single parent trying to raise those eight children. I know what it is to have children come to school hungry. I know it has always been there, but there is no excuse for us to continue allowing it. There is no excuse for that. We have got to start taking it seriously. I don't understand how we don't see it that way. We have got to start changing our system so that we don't have children coming to school saying: Sir, are we going to eat this morning? Is this the morning I can eat? I mean, that is a Charles Dickens story, but here we have it in our own Province, and I do not see our government seriously taking it to heart.

Don't tell me what is going to happen in ten years time and don't tell me we have a strategy that is going to make everything better in ten years. We have to start strategizing now so we don't have children going to school hungry, we don't have children looking for breakfast on the morning when there is no breakfast in the school. This is our responsibility to the people in this Province. At the same time that those children are coming to school looking for breakfast, they are the same children who are in homes, very often, that belong to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that have mold in them. You have, in some cases, children going to schools that have mold in them and coming from homes that have mold in them.

I know in my district mold is the number one issue for people living in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing; mold. The answer that gets given to some people, and my own constituency staff person had this said to her by somebody in maintenance for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing: Tell them to keep their windows open and that will help with the mold. The person meant both in the summer and in the winter. Tell them to keep their windows open and that will help with the mold! What an answer to come from a maintenance person from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. That is what my constituency staff person was supposed to tell this person who called. It is not just this person, we have so many in Newfoundland and Labrador who are calling my constituency staff person regularly, and the number one issue is mold. Like I said, some of these children who are leaving homes in mold, who are going to schools in mold, are children who do not have breakfast in the morning and asking: Sir, is this the morning for breakfast? This is Newfoundland and Labrador today. This is disgraceful! It is absolutely disgraceful!

It is incumbent upon us to take this seriously. I am not telling these stories because I want to get up and make us all feel bad. We do not have the right to sit in this House, none of us, and not be aware of the reality that is out there because this is our responsibility. This is our responsibility! It is our responsibility to do all the other things too. It is our responsibility to worry about communications, it is our responsibility to worry about the roads, but it is our responsibility to worry about what is happening with people. If we cannot fit all of those pieces together there is something wrong, because right now I think we have the resources to fit all of those pieces together, and I am not seeing us working at it.

I will not be content with ten-year plans. That is not going to satisfy me. I want things dealt with within the here and now. I want a plan that shows, from budget to budget, how we are immediately taking care of these issues. I want to stop hearing about children who are going to school saying: Sir, is this the morning that we get breakfast? This is what we have to deal with.

One of my colleagues from the government side of the House is aware of a man who both she and I know about, a man who is $1,000, or will be in January, $1,000 above the drug card limit in his annual income but who does not have the money to pay for his drugs. Yet we are being told, I am being told, she is being told, by HRLE and the Department of Health and by everybody, that there is nothing can be done for this man. There is nothing that can be done for a man in his eighties who has one and a half legs, who is in a wheelchair, who had a stroke six years ago, who is widowed and who is living in a home where he pays $1,500 a month that leaves him with $217 in his pocket. Yet, he has to pay $476 for his drugs, if he were able to pay the full $476 for his drugs. Our system cannot do anything for that man.

I have spoken to two ministers about this, and I am being told: Well, we will see what happens in January when the new drug card comes out. In actual fact he will not qualify because the drug card for a single person is $19,000 and his income is slightly over $20,000, but $1,500 goes ever month to the senior citizens home he lives in. At the time that his rent went up from $1,100 to $1,500 a month he lost his drug card because his wife had died. This is why this man only has $217-

MR. SPEAKER (Oram): Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Just a couple of concluding sentences.

I appreciate the time to be able to put all of this in front of the House. These are the realities that I will continue to bring to the House. I thank the House for listening to me and I look forward to continuing this discussion and continuing these issues at another time when we have the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, to all my colleagues.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading now on Bill 60.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No 2. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 60 is read a second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 60)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call for second reading of Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, on the Liquor Control Act, Bill 65, what it is: Last year we dropped the fee for anyone applying for a particular licence and there is no fee anymore, but they are still required to apply and file. We figure that is a lot of red tape. Why do an annual thing each year when there is no fee attached. It is only an extra form that businesses have to fill out. If there is no fee their licence would continue unless for some reason it would be revoked and that authority is there anyway. This is redundant now and we just want to repeal that. There is no need to file it because there is no fee associated with it. That is pretty straightforward.

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

MR. REID: I am not going to speak long on that. Maybe you can clarify what you just said. You said, even though they had to reapply, they did not have to pay a fee. Now you are not asking them to reapply again. Is that also applicable to non-profit organizations?

MR. SULLIVAN: I believe the fee set to apply is $100. No, this would not apply to special licences and things of that nature.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, that is not with this particular provision. Otherwise, if no one had to apply for a special licence everybody would go out and operate it anyway without any licence.

There has to be a control in that system.

This is just where the fee was dropped, that there is no longer a requirement now to file. They are the ones who apply on an annual basis, they are not the ones who apply for any special events or anything like that. It is just the annual filing of that particular fee.

Right now we said, there is no fee and if there is no fee why apply for that. If any store or any of these who are out there has a licence and they do not have to pay on it, why file? If there is a problem that arises, obviously - and there are authorities there anyway - that a licence should be revoked, that is something that could be done under any circumstance, and there are authorities there on that anyway. It is not dealing with the special events or anything of that nature, because they are ones who have to apply and there is a certain procedure to follow on those.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You are doing a great job for your first try in that Chair.

The minister gets up and says that no longer do they need to apply because they do not have to pay a fee. Let me tell you something, Minister - and maybe you should consider this, because it deals with non-profit organizations, voluntarily organizations in the Province when they apply for a special events licence like you just spoke of.

I had the occasion, about three weeks ago, to attend two fireman's balls on one night; one in Joe Batts Arm and one in Island Harbour. That is on Fogo Island. I went to the one in Island Harbour after the one at Joe Batt's. It is a small community, 200 or 300 people. I think forty-five people showed up at the fireman's ball. That is not bad when you consider there are only 200 to 300 people in the community. One of the first things they mentioned to me when I got there was: Because they had a dinner, and a good dinner it was, and they wanted to be able to sell a beer to make a few dollars for the fire department so that they could purchase equipment that the government will not give to them, they had to, not only apply in advance, but they had to send a $100 fee.

When you think about it, I say, Mr. Speaker, forty-five people attending a function. I do not know if they made enough selling the few beer that they did to pay for the event licence. If they have a dart tournament or something down there the following Saturday they have to apply again to your department and enclose a $100 cheque before they are allowed to do that.

If you are out there saying that if you have a liquor licence now, you do not have to reapply and you do not have to send in your $100 - and these are for profit, I say, minister. These are the people who are making money. These are the people who are selling it for profit and it is not going into a voluntary organization. I ask: Why are you discriminating against voluntary organizations in this Province, the ones you will not fund adequately to fulfil the function that they perform in the community, why are you charging them the money? Why are you discriminating against them?

Why don't you go out tomorrow, if you want a little good news that you are all talking about over there recently - if you want to do something that is good for some communities and voluntary organizations, why don't you come out tomorrow morning with a press statement saying that from here on in those people who apply for those liquor licences for an event, a fireman's ball, or in a Lion's Club or a Kinsmen Club, that you eliminate that $100 fee, and do something positive. I know you are always looking for something recently over there to get up and toot your horn and beat yourselves on the chest about, something positive. That would be one.

I say to the minister, you are not losing anything in your Treasury. Let's face it, if you have to depend on the community of Island Harbour and the volunteer fire brigade that is in there to balance the budgets of this Province, then there is something wrong, especially in light of what we saw here the summer at the Premier's conference. There is something wrong that one conference, one night in St. John's down at the Civic Centre here, that I think the government of this Province put $32 million in. You had one function and it cost the taxpayers of this Province $200,000. You had free booze at that. That organization or whoever owns the Civic Centre downtown or the convention centre did not have to pay $100 for the licence to sell booze because you gave it away; they did not sell it. The meal and the booze that night cost $82,500, simply so that someone could eat a good meal and swagger up to the bar any time they wanted and have a refill for free. That was only part of the evening.

You had a band there that cost $75,000 for an hour, so that when you were eating and drinking free booze you were entertained. If that were not enough, if you did not like the music or the free booze or the free food, then you had an opportunity to listen to a comedian that cost the taxpayers of this Province $30,000. You were all there, you were all invited. Two hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers' money - and I might add, that is the taxpayers of Deep Bay and Island Harbour as well, and the taxpayers of Fogo Island and New World Island and Change Islands and Twillingate island in my district. They helped pay for that. To help pay for that you have to charge a volunteer fire brigade in Island Harbour $100 so that they could have a fireman's ball to have a bottle of beer, when you are slugging down the free ones! There is something fundamentally wrong with that, Mr. Speaker; something fundamentally wrong with that! I will get into that later, because I get an hour of speech later on tonight on supplementary supply, and I do not want to waste it right now.

All I am asking the minister: If he wants to make a positive statement, rather than running away from me, get up now and say it was overlooked. We do not mean to be charging the Island Harbours and the Quirpons and the Mary's Harbours and the Gunners Coves, as the Minister of Innovation talks about all the time. Anyone in those communities, or in your own, Mr. Speaker, I might say, in Salvage or in Terra Nova, if they hold a function they have to send in $100. How many people live in Terra Nova, Mr. Speaker? Are there twenty out there?

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You have a wise guy down there in the corner who lives in St. John's and was probably never in the community of Terra Nova in his life, who says: They don't drink down there. That's very good. I tell you one thing, they drink in St. John's and they drink at the Civic Centre. You were down there. I do not know if you drank or not that night, but I tell you one thing, if you were down and you wanted a drink, you did not have to pay for it, I say to the Member for St. John's North. You did not have to pay for your booze down at the Convention Centre. If you wanted a drink, it was there for you for free. That is what I am saying.

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I have no problem, as long as your fair to everybody and not just yourself. That is what I say to the Member for St. John's North. I have no problem, except when you do it for some and not for the rest.

All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, if the minister wants to say or do something positive, get up tonight and tell the local fire departments and all other voluntary organizations who are giving their time free - not like the crowd opposite who are being paid by the way, paid handsomely the night they were down to the free booze, free entertainment, free grub festivities. You are getting paid to be down there. That is part of your job. You are actually collecting a pay cheque to do that, I say to the Member for St. John's North. You are actually -

MR. RIDGLEY: I'm worth more than that.

MR. REID: Oh, you are worth more than that. Good. He just said he is worth more than that. He is worth more then the free lunch and the free entertainment and the free booze, if he so desired to drink it, plus get a salary to attend a function. He said: I am worth all of that. Yes, boy, and you are probably looking for a raise too, I say to the Member for St. John's North. Keep it up. Keep feeding me, because the people are watching. They are hearing what you are saying. I am repeating what you are saying, I say to the Member for St. John's North. The free food, the free booze, the free entertainment is not enough, I am getting paid for it, and I am still not making enough. Good! I am delighted to hear you say it, but I do not think my constituents are very happy with you making those comments, or any other community in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not too happy with spending $20,000 for the sign out here in front of the building either, I tell you that. That are not too happy with that either.

Mr. Speaker, I am not getting into a rant about this. I am asking the minister to do the right thing. I was asked by the fire department in Island Harbour that night: Gerry, is there any way that, when we hold a function like we did here tonight, we can get away without paying that $100? Is there any way that they can give us a licence, make one application at the beginning of the year for special functions. They are even willing to pay the $100, if you will let them do it throughout the rest of the year and not charge them $100 every time they do it. If they host a wedding, in the building, and they sell a beer or give one away, they have to pay $100. They are a volunteer organization; 300 people in the town, fifteen or sixteen firemen on the fire brigade, trying to earn enough money from their charities to buy a breathing apparatus or a pump for their truck.

You are laughing at me? That is what you do. I say to the minister, get up, do the right thing, eliminate the fee for voluntary organizations. You have done it for those who were making profits off the alcohol, do it for the volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: When the Minister of Finance speaks now he will close debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are stores out there that used to have to pay $100, and I met with them back, I guess, before last year's budget. People came in before last year's budget and they said: Those little stores, a lot of them, out around rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they have to apply to get a licence to sell. They have to sell beer out of their stores and that and they used to have to pay $100. That is one little tax. Tax for sandwiches: They said there is tax for sandwiches, to sell a dozen of beer, we have all of those taxes. We said: We will try to alleviate these. So we eliminated that $100, I think it is, the $100 fee for the corner store out in St. Mary's or the corner store up on the Northern Peninsula or the corner store out in Twillingate, or wherever it happens to be, that are selling beer. They use to pay $100 fee. We eliminated that, so why should the little store out in Joe Batt's Arm now have to fill out a form every year to be able to sell their dozen of beer or their twenty dozen of beer, when there is no fee attached.

If there are problems with it and there is reason for enforcement, then there is authority under that to be able to do something. That is all this is. It has nothing to do with special event licences, I say. It has nothing to do with that.

The number one thing we did, we eliminated a few million dollars in fees, that if they had to resell alcohol they would pay higher than the consumer. We eliminated that a year ago.

MR. REID: Who paid for it before you eliminated it?

MR. SULLIVAN: It was 12 per cent put in by that government and it was in for years and years. We said we will phase it out over four years, to nine to six to three. We went to nine the first year, and in last year's Budget we eliminated it completely, so that people who buy alcohol to resell it do not have to pay any levy on top. That went out last year.

This year, the little stores came in from around the bay. I think someone from the Salmonier Line or St. Mary's who has a store came in, and they came in from other parts of the Province. There are several who came in and sat down and said: Why are the little stores out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, trying to survive and sell some sandwiches - you charge $125. Why are we paying $100 to go out and sell a few dozen beer? Some of them do not sell large volumes. So we eliminated, we reduced the fees, eliminated them on those small stores. We eliminated the $100 they have to pay there. They were very thankful. The Chamber was very thankful. I got a card, I got a message back, on what we did to help the small businesses that are struggling in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that want to sell a few dozen beer out of their stores. That is what we did, we eliminated it.

Why would we force that store now to have to fill out a form applying for a licence when there is no fee attached? Let them keep their licence and let it go on and continue until such time as there is reason to revoke it. If there is no reason to revoke it, let them keep it forever and let them continue to sell in that little corner store here in St. John's, or the small community store anywhere in this Island.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 65)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider a number of bills.

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

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

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 (S. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I now call, for Committee, Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances 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'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 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?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 59)

Shall the title 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 Bill 59 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 59 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I now call for Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

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: 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: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 56)

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 Bill 56 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 56 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I now call Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control 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'.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 65 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against?

Bill 65 is carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

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

MADAM CHAIR: It has been move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 65, 56 and 59 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed her to report Bills 59, 56 and 65 passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call, with leave, third reading of Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair acknowledges that leave has been granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader, did you call number sixty-five?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I called Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, for third reading, with leave, and I think the Opposition House Leader agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK (Mr. McKenzie): A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 56 is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a third time, order passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 56)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move third reading, with leave, of Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 59 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act." (Bill 59).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances 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 Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 59).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move third reading, with leave, of Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

It is moved and second that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control 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 Liquor Control Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now we will get to, I guess, our final order of business for the day which is Bill 62.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate and inform the House that I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is dated December 4, 2006.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March, 2007. By way of Supplementary Supply and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: _______________________________________________________

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor, Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the message together with the amount be referred to a Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the message together with the amount be referred to the Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: This Supplementary Supply Bill is asking for extra funding in addition to the funding that was approved in the main Supply Bill and any Interim Supply that was approved earlier.

I will just outline what the total amount of the bill is for. If you look on the back page there, the first part says there is $10 million for Supplementary Supply. That is the amount so the industrial rates would not increase to the industrial consumer's electricity in our Province. With Abitibi Stephenville shut down, they would have been obligated to pay $10 million of that industrial rate. Rather than pass that on to the other four remaining industrial customers, which will be the refinery in Come By Chance, Aur Resources in Central, Abitibi in Grand Falls-Windsor and Kruger in Corner Brook, the provincial government has provided that money; rather than pass that on to these other companies doing businesses in our Province.

The remaining amount in this Supply Bill here is for a variety of things. All the rest are related to the House of Assembly; $1,152,900 of that relates to extra money. There were not sufficient monies in the Budget for the House of Assembly for a variety of reasons. I will point out what these are and the total amounts that are needed in addition to what was approved in the Budget. There was $50,000 that the Auditor General has requested to be able to carry out his review under the fibre optics proposal, the resolution in the House. He figured he would need $50,000 for that. There were a variety of equipment leases under the House of Assembly. It was determined there was an insufficient appropriation of monies to be able to cover these to the tune of $409,000. That is being provided in this bill. The House of Assembly has determined that it would need $100,000 more for legal fees. Also, under the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer there is $593,900 for that purpose.

Underneath that heading of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, $126,800 is appropriated for a by-election for the District of Kilbride. That is higher than the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for a few reasons. Number one, there were some allocations already within the Budget to be able to cover some of the cost on the Quidi Vidi by-election. Since there are more electors in Kilbride, you are eligible to get a rebate back of one-third of what you spend, I believe, or whatever it is. I think it is one-third of the eligible expenses. That would cover $126,800.

There is also a pre-election readiness. When we inform the Chief Electoral Office they have to get ready to the tune of $250,400. There is also an amount in case of boundary redistribution. A report, I think, was only just provided, received by the Minister of Justice. In fact - was it tabled today? I am not sure but it was tabled today in the House. I am not aware if it was, but it is due to be in the very near future. I think there are a certain number of days required to do that, so I am sure it to be forthcoming very shortly. There is an amount of $216,700 for that, but that money would be frozen in case there is no change. It would be frozen, it would not be able to utilized, but we had to appropriate for it in that eventuality, whatever may happen.

Out of these amounts, all except one relates to the House of Assembly, and the other relates to industrial users of electricity, so the burden of the $10 million would not be passed on to other consumers of an industrial nature, and those four that I named there would not have to share that burden.

That is the purpose of this Supply Bill here to the House of Assembly, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is lots in this bill that we can talk about, and we are going to be talking about it for quite some time. We also have another bill we are going to doing tonight that I get an hour to talk to.

The minister just raised an interesting issue. He talked about the industrial users of electricity and how we are going to pick up a $10 million tab for that this year. Let me explain to the people of the Province exactly why we are doing this, and it goes back to the Stephenville mill, the closure of the Stephenville mill and the promise by this government, when they were negotiating with the people out there, or said that they were going to contribute $150 million over fifteen years, which is $10 million a year. Ten million dollars a year for fifteen years, and they said, well this is a good deal, and then Abitibi turned them down. They ended up blaming the union after, the Province did, those opposite, for scrapping the deal.

The reason we are paying, by the way, the reason that the minister is saying tonight that we have to get a Supplementary Supply Bill to pay $10 million to Newfoundland Hydro for electricity rates, is because of the closure of the mill. Just think about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. REID: The minister says that is right. We are going to be paying $10 million in perpetuity until we find someone else to use that electricity.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. REID: It is a one time deal is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. REID: So you are not doing it next year? Can you give the commitment now that you are not doing it next year?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: All right. Because, here is what the deal was. Abitibi was buying a certain amount of power every year and so were other industrial users in the Province, like the Come By Chance mill, Kruger and others, the larger companies. They were paying what is called an industrial rate. We were told by Abitibi Consolidated, when they were in negotiations with government, if we close this mill it is going to cost the Province $10 million a year. What happens is, we have a commitment that we have to buy a certain amount of power from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro each year, and if we do not pay it then the other industrial users have to pick up the tab.

In other words, if the minister was not doing what he is doing here tonight and saying the taxpayers of the Province are going to pick up this $10 million - because that is what we are doing. The taxpayers of this Province now are going to be saddled with a bill for $10 million, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, because the Province is saying: We are letting the other industrial users off the hook. We are letting them off the hook. We are not going to spread that $10 million over the other industrial users. What a con game! I can see it now, and it just hit me, why the Province offered up the $150 million over fifteen years, because they were going to have to pay it anyway.

They did nothing for the people in Stephenville who worked in that mill, absolutely nothing. All they were saying is, if the mill stayed open they would not paying, we would not be paying, this $10 million tonight. All they are saying is: Listen, you close down and we are going to be on the hook for $10 million a year, $150 million over the next fifteen years, unless we get another industrial user to come in and take up the electricity that the Stephenville mill was using. What a con game! What a con game!

We thought that the Premier and this government were being magnanimous and that they were helping the people in Stephenville in the Stephenville mill save their jobs, and all they were looking at, the Minister of Finance, was the bottom line. He figured it out early. He says: Premier, we are going to lose $10 million a year if the mill closes, offer them that. When they did not take the deal, now he is coming forward and asking for the taxpayers of the Province to pay the $10 million. Just imagine! The offer you made to the people in Stephenville, through Abitibi, was absolutely nothing. That is what you offered them. You tried to get yourself off the hook from paying the $10 million, I say to the Minister of Finance. Make no wonder you are over there with your head down and would not look at me, because you should be ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should hang your head and hang it low. You tried to pull the biggest con game that I have ever seen perpetrated on the people of this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, you can clarify it all you like, I say to the Speaker, because Abitibi executives told us back in July of that year, before the Premier came forward and offered them the $15 million: If this mill closes, the other industrial users in this Province are going to have to be on the hook for $10 million more a year. The Kruger's and the Come By Change Oil Refinery and other large industrial users are going to have to pick up the slack and pay the $10 million. Now tonight you are saying: Never mind these people picking up the slack, the taxpayers of the Province are going to pick up the slack.

Here is what we got, here is the great deal: Not only did we lose 901 direct and indirect jobs as a result of the Stephenville mill closure - and the reason I am saying 901 direct and indirect jobs is because that is what the former Minister of Natural Resources said that were lost. I was up one day talking about 300 to 350 jobs lost with the closure of the Stephenville mill and he got up and corrected me. He said: It is not 300 to 350 jobs, it is 901 direct and indirect jobs lost in the Stephenville region if that mill goes down. What have we got? We have 901 full and part-time jobs, or direct and indirect jobs, lost in the Stephenville mill. Right? That is what we have. We have the mill gone.

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, I have to correct the hon. member who is incorrect in what he stated. Hydro was on target to recover the traditional balance in the stabilization fund. Had Abitibi stayed open until 2007 it would have been fully recovered. There was $10 million in the fund that did not get recovered, and therefore recovering the remaining balance is not $10 million forever. They give the people in the Province the impression that this is going on forever. That was their commitment in the fund, to pay back to the fund over the period of time that it would have been paid back had it been open another year. Rather than pass that on to other people, government decided to make that payment, and therefore they did not have to move with a rate increase. That is the reason. Do not put false information -

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank you for that ruling, because that is what it was. There is no point of order, and very seldom when the Government House Leader rises, the Minister of Finance, the Member for Ferryland, very seldom does he have a point of order. He just does that as a way to throw you off your stride when you get into a speech that he finds himself rather uncomfortable listening to.

The fact of the matter is, he is here tonight asking us to approve a bill that includes $10 million from the taxpayers pockets to go towards a hydro bill that came about as a result of the closure of the mill in Stephenville. Get up and say that is wrong, I say to the Minister of Finance. Get up and say that is wrong. Boy, you had no problem a minute ago standing up on a point of order and interjecting. If you want to, do it again. If I was wrong, you would be up by now.

Here is what he is saying: Because the Stephenville mill closed and 901 jobs were gone on the Port au Port Peninsula and all through Central Newfoundland, because they are out there now approved by the Minister of Environment to decommission the mill - what does that mean, I say to the Minister of Environment, the Member who represents Marystown? What does decommission mean? Decommission means tear it down. Because he has given them the approval to tear down the mill in Stephenville, and that there are 901 jobs gone, now he is asking the taxpayers to pay $10 million because they allowed that to happen. That is what it is costing us this year, $10 million, because this government did nothing to stop the mill from closing in Stephenville. Absolutely nothing!

He can get up and argue all he wants that this is not going to continue year over year. It will continue year over year, and the $150 million they offered Stephenville was simply money they knew they were going to have to spend anyway. Actually, they offered the Stephenville people, the workers in that mill, absolutely nothing. Not only did they do that, Madam Chair, but at the end of the day they tried to put that on the backs of the union workers in the mill by blaming it on them because Abitibi did not accept the contract. Again, I say, shame on you, Minister. Shame on you!

Here we are talking about the good news stories - I have been listening to your colleagues now for the last two or three days scrambling to find something, a little bit of good news. One of your members over there, I think it was the Minister of Business, actually had the gall to go on Open Line a little while ago and ask the host, Randy Simms, what happened to the little good news today you used to put off? Because we are getting beat up on, Randy, by the Opposition and the people in the Province complaining that there is no good news. Just imagine, calling the moderator of a Open Line show and begging him to put a little good news today on VOCM.

Has the Minister of Business figured it out yet, why they do not have that program? Because there is no good new today, I say to the minister. There is no good news today, unless you want to talk about the sign that you commissioned, I say to the Member for Gander, that sits out in front of Confederation Building that cost $20,000, $20,000 for a couple of sheets of plywood and a few four-by-fours or eight-by-eights; $20,000. Then, he had the gall to stand up this afternoon - and the Premier, wherever he was listening to this today, must have cringed. He must have cringed, because my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, got up and said: Is it true that you paid $20,000 for that sign out in front of the door? He stumbled and he stammered. Not only that, he said, ah, um, ah, actually there are two. There is another one in Goose Bay and they cost $40,000 not $20,000. Just imagine! If I were the Premier upstairs listening to that this afternoon I would have cringed. He could have, yes, the sign out there was $20,000, but that was not enough to brag about that he spent $20,000 on a couple of sheets of plywood out in front of here, he had to go a step further and say, we sent up two sheets of plywood to Goose Bay and that cost us $20,000 too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I say to the minister, the Premier is probably thinking, or rethinking, his choice to put in the Department of Business tonight. There are far more people over there more capable than you to sit in that position. The fellow who is out working on your Red Tape Reduction Committee, the Member for Terra Nova, could do a far better job, I tell you that, and was looked over after he did all the work on the Red Tape Reduction Committee. Then, the first week that you are in the Department of Business, what do you do? You come out and say, I am going to give you a report now on all of the work that I have done, and my department, on the Red Tape Reduction Committee. Here is the Member for Terra Nova who did all of the work. The first week into his new portfolio he jumps up and takes all of the credit for it. I can see why you are in Cabinet, because you have no problem jumping over the heads and shoulders of your colleagues to get there. That is what I say to the Member for Gander.

Again, I have to get back to the point, and that is just the first time I looked at this bill. Here is the Supplementary Supply Bill. It is good for $11,152,000 and $10 million of that is directly related to the closure of the plant in Stephenville, the laying off of 901 people in that area. Now, on top of all of that the minister is here tonight saying, we should all vote for that. Simply because we did not do anything to keep the mill open, now we are on the hook for $10 million to pay the electricity rates for electricity that is not being used.

He will not give a rebate to low-income earners. He will not give a rebate to senior citizens who will have to go to the mall here in St. John's to stay warm this winter because they cannot pay their electrical bills, or those out in my district, or the lady I saw on television last year from the Placentia district with five quilts on her bed and all of her clothes on when she crawled into bed at night because she could not afford to heat her house with electricity. Because you were incompetent, you and colleagues, and allowed a mill to close, allowed 901 people to lose their job, and allowed them to tear down the building, you are here tonight saying: What a great job we did. Now we need $10 million to pay for electricity we never used; $10 million for electricity we never used.

Every time that my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans asks you to give a rebate to electricity users in the Province in the cold months of the winter, you get up and you go into a rant and a tear and no one understands what you say expect the word at the end of it; no. Do you know what I would say to you? It is a good thing that Charles Dickens don't come back. It is a good thing Charles Dickens is not around today, because A Christmas Carol that you are all familiar with - I am sure you all have seen it, you all have read it.

MR. YOUNG: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Oh, no - the Member for St. Barbe, the fellow who won the nomination last week where 400 Tories voted against him, he is over there saying, no, never heard of A Christmas Carol. Well let me put it to you this way, A Christmas Carol - when I tell you what A Christmas Carol is you will say, now I know it.

A Christmas Carol is about Scrooge. Now you know. Now he nodded. Now it is about Scrooge. Most people refer to it as Scrooge, but Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol and that is the name of the book by the way. I am saying, if he were here today, he would not have the main character in that book called Scrooge. Do you know what he would have him called?

AN HON. MEMBER: Scrooge.

MR. REID: No, he would not be Scrooge, he would be Loyola; Humbug Loyola. That would be the name of Scrooge. If Charles Dickens were around today that is what he would have called the main character in A Christmas Carol, I say to the minster, because he should be absolutely ashamed of himself.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: I will be back, Madam Chair, tonight, because this is revolting.

I can tell you right now, it is no good for you to ask me to vote for this bill because I am not doing it; not to pay $10 million of taxpayers' money for electricity we are not using because you allowed the mill in Stephenville to close.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam -

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague was standing. We usually alternate in Committee and I think it is only appropriate.

MADAM CHAIR: I am sorry. I did not see him there.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Bill 62, Interim Supply: Before I make a couple of comments, Madam Chair, about this bill, I want to just think about the message that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to convey to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: He sits in this House, I say Madam Chair, supposing to be and purporting to be and presenting himself to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as an alternative Premier to the one we have today, but he stands in this House tonight and says: There is no good news happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the bold statement that he just made a few moments ago; no good news in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the members opposite, I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: If that is what he sees when he looks out his window, when he goes to his office tonight and looks throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and he is able to say, there is no good news happening, I just want to remind him of a couple of things. If you are aspiring to be the leader of this Province, if you are aspiring to be the Premier of the Province, you better have the capacity, you better have the ability, to see the positive attributes that exist in this Province. You better have the ability to see the potential that exists in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Because if you don't, don't come out next year on October 9 and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: I want to be your Premier, but I don't see anything good going on. How can you actually stand before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and say that?

Lets just take a couple of things. When I look out of my house in Clarenville, I do not need to look very far. All I need to look at is what is going on just to the east of me; a major development in Come By Chance. We have right now, today, a process unfolding where we could see a second refinery built in Newfoundland, we could see a second refinery in Come By Chance, adjacent to my district, employing about 700 people; ongoing, I say, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Potentially 3,000 construction jobs, but the member opposite does not see that. He does not see that potential. Maybe he is not aware of it. Maybe he does not understand what is happening in Labrador. Look at the mining exploration that is taking place in Labrador. Look at what is happening now, the potential for expanded growth in Labrador West. The member opposite, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, obviously does not see that. He does not understand the potential that exists. Maybe he does not fully appreciate the value of that asset that we have, I say.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Madam Chair, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair will have her moment if she wants to stand and I am sure she will stand in a few moments, but I ask her, Madam Chair, to give me a few moments to say a few words.

I say, Madam Chair, if you are going to stand in this House and make that statement you better make sure you know what you are talking about.

To stand here as well and to try to suggest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly the people of the Stephenville area, that this government did absolutely nothing to try to ensure that the mill stayed open in Come by Chance is an actual false statement, it is an absolute incorrect - in fact, I would stretch it to say it is an absolute lie. The member opposite knows the difference. If he does not, he ought to know the difference, if he were paying attention to what was happening, I say Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Madam Chair, (inaudible) an absolute lie what I said or one of my colleagues. I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. WISEMAN: If I offended the member opposite, I withdraw the statement, but I do have to reiterate a point. If the member is going to stand in this House and make statements they should be accurate, they should be factually correct.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is no question, no doubt whatsoever, that the member used the word lie. We have a rule here, parliamentary procedure, no if's, and's or but's about it. If you did it stand up, do the honourable thing, and say I withdraw my unparliamentary remark. Do not put if's, and's or but's about it.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: The Chair did not hear the remark, but if the hon. -

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of disorder, Madam Chair.

The Leader of the Opposition has been in this House for a long while and he knows that it is unparliamentary to refer to people by other than their district or their title. He knows the rules. They have been brought to order in the House on it. It is proper parliamentary procedure, so I ask him to do what is the honourable thing to do, and as he should do in the House, and withdraw it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I apologize if I insulted scrooge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

That was an unequivocal withdrawal.

MR. REID: I withdraw it, Madam Chair. I will be a nice person.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, Madam Chair, we need to fully understand what is actually taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we all acknowledge - all of us as MHA's in this House get calls frequently from our constituents and people who are having some challenges in life. We all hear some of the same stories that we have heard from members opposite. That happens in our communities, we recognize and acknowledge that, but to stand in this House and to say that there is nothing good happening in Newfoundland and Labrador I think is a misunderstanding, and it reflects a lack of understanding, of what is actually happening in this Province.

As I was saying a moment ago, I do not need to look very far when I look out my window in Clarenville to find out what is happening in our Province. I mentioned there was potential for a second refinery in Come By Chance. I also look down towards Harcourt and I see a new mink farm, a new industry evolving. I look down towards Charleston, a new foods kitchen for that mink industry that is evolving in the area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I look down in Burgoynes Cove and I see a slate quarry, the only one in the Province, employing some sixty people, exporting internationally, I say, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I look at the announcement last week, a potential new major development in Arnold's Cove, right on our doorstep, on the Isthmus of the Avalon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: All of these things, and I do not need to look very far, I say.

I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, he needs to get a new set of glasses because if he cannot see further than his nose and see what is actually happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, he should not be standing in this House as a leader of a party and offering himself to the people of this Province as a potential Premier.

When we sit in this House, as I said a moment ago, we all hear some of the challenges that many people are facing. We understand that there are people in this Province today who need to have food banks. We understand that, we recognize that, and we saw that happening. That is why we have introduced a Poverty Reduction Strategy. That reflected an insightful consultation process. It reflected an understanding of what actually contributes to poverty and what are the components, what are the systemic changes that we need to make, to ensure that over time we bring about change. Those things do not happen overnight.

For someone to stand in this House and say that there are people out there today going hungry and we should not spend money in this area because we should feed them - there are people on the opposite side of this House standing and saying that there are people on long wait lists to get hospital services. We recognize that and that is why we are looking at a wait time strategy. We understand those things.

We heard the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talk about some of the challenges in providing home support. We understand that, we recognize that as well, and that is why we have been engaged for the last six or eight months in a process that will see us launch, early in 2007, a new provincial strategy on healthy aging, I say, Madam Chair. Those sorts of strategies, those sorts of plans that we are mapping out, is our intent to try to address some of the very issues that members opposite stand in this House day after day and talk about as if there is some crime, as if there is something that we are negligent and not addressing. We, too, recognize those issues. We are not oblivious to what is happening around us.

We recognize that there are some challenges in our health system. We recognize that some of our schools today may have mold in them. Yes, we recognize all of that. What are we doing about it? People opposite stand in this House and share all of those thoughts with us as if we do not recognize it and are critical of what it is that is actually happening out there. On this side of the House we have a responsibility to respond, not only recognize it and talk about it, but we have a responsibility to respond. That is why people in 2003 elected us to form a government, and we are doing just that, I say, Madam Chair.

Look at what we have done, as I said a moment ago, with the poverty reduction strategy. Look at what we are doing with respect to health care. Look at the major investments that we have made in health care this year. The last two years alone -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member has fifteen seconds.

MR. WISEMAN: I thank you, Madam Chair, and I am going to clue up.

I think it becomes important, as members stand in this House and talk about the things that do not exist in this Province, to follow their statement and make the next statement: But we acknowledge that government is working towards a solution. I think that is the key thing because we, too, on this side of the House, recognize the things that are being (inaudible) on the other side of the House. The significant difference is, we recognize there is a potential solution and we are working towards it, I say, Madam Chair.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to rise and have a few words, but before I do that, I want to say one thing. I am pleased that the Member for Trinity North did recognize that there are issues out there in the Province which need to be addressed. Sometimes when I listen to members opposite, it seems like they either do not understand or certainly do not espouse the fact that there are problems out there that exist in different sectors, but I am glad today that he did recognize some of those issues that are important to people and certainly let us know where they were on his priority list.

Madam Chair, his speech was about good news and I think the real good news I heard today was when the Member for Lake Melville and the Minister of Transportation and Works said he was going out to light up the Christmas tree. I got really excited because I love Christmas. I absolutely love Christmas! I was so disappointed that we had to be kept in the House of Assembly all through supper and I could not go out on the steps and watch the tree being lit up, I say, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: I was disappointed, I have to say. I would have loved to have gone out to watch the Christmas lights light up on Confederation Hill this evening. Anyway, we were here in the Legislature and I guess the Minister of Finance thought that was appropriate. So be it!

Anyway, Madam Chair, I want to speak to Bill 62. I want to speak to the fact that the government in this bill is granting a sum of money to industrial customers in the Province to help pay for the energy costs, whether they use it or whether they do not. There is $10 million here being made to cover off the industrial rates in the Province so that it does not have to be spread over the other industrial customers who are left there.

Madam Chair, one of the issues that I have with that, like my colleague from Twillingate & Fogo has already outlined, is if the Abitibi-Price mill at Stephenville had not closed then we would not be here tonight granting this money to cover off the industrial rates for industrial companies in the Province, because the mill in Stephenville, in itself, would have taken care of those rates. They would have paid those bills and it would not have been left as a burden to the taxpayers in the Province. Do we have problems with that? Of course we have problems with that, because we feel that government should have done more to try and keep the mill in Stephenville open, to try and save the over 900 direct and indirect jobs that were associated with the mill. As a result of that mill closing, not only have we seen tremendous out-migration from the Stephenville area, but we have also seen the housing market - there are a lot of houses for sale. I know on one street out there, at one point there were like nineteen houses with For Sale signs on them. I spend a bit of time back and forth there because I have family there and relatives.

Also, Madam Chair, I was aware of over twenty small businesses in the Stephenville area that closed up as a result of the Abitibi mill closing down. So, to stand here this evening and to ask the taxpayers of the Province to pay the $10 million bill that is owed by industrial companies in the Province because the mill in Stephenville closed, in my mind is not appropriate, and not appropriate simply because all efforts should have been made to keep that mill open and to keep those jobs. They should be still there today.

The other problem I have with this, Madam Chair, is that I have a district that pays the highest electrical and diesel operating rates of anywhere else in the Province. Almost all of the communities in my district are run on diesel generated power. It costs a lot more than hydro power to be able to produce, and therefore it costs more to the consumers. The people in my district pay the highest rates in the Province. Not only that, Madam Chair, right now Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has applied to the Public Utilities Board to have the rates increased for all consumers and users in the Province, domestic and otherwise. That means that people in my district who now pay the highest rates in the Province could foreseeably have to pay even more if they are granted this request under the Public Utilities Board.

Madam Chair, for me to stand and vote for this, it is going to be very, very difficult, let me tell you; very difficult. If there was $10 million to be spent right now to offset a burden of the price of delivering electricity to anyone in the Province, it should be the people who live on the North and South Coast of Labrador because they are heavily burdened with that cost.

In addition to that, even Island grid customers are being asked to pay more. There is a rate application right now before the Public Utilities Board that will be heard over the course of the next year. By the end of 2007, or actually by the fall of 2007, you could foreseeably see every single consumer of electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador having their rates increased. At the same time, the government is going to cover off a $10 million bill that should be paid by industrial customers. For what reason? Because one of those customers has gone out of business and has left the Province. That is the reason, and that is the mill in Stephenville.

Madam Chair, when you have to put it in that kind of a context, in the context of paying for and subsidizing power not being used by industrial customers, which is in essence what the taxpayers of the Province are doing - they are out paying for power for industrial customers that is not being used under this bill, but at the same time they, themselves, are going to be faced with a rate review by the Public Utilities Board in the next few months and probably have their own electricity rates increased in their homes and in their businesses. I do not see any fairness in that and I have a tremendous problem with it. I think if there is going to be that kind of a subsidy put into electricity in this Province, it should go into the pockets of the consumers to offset the high prices that they are now paying. That would be the most sensible, I would think, resolution and the most sensible investment for the government.

The other issue around this is the people on low income who have electric heat. Nobody is giving them a subsidy this year. There is nothing in this bill which gives anything to any individual on low income who has to depend upon hydro power for electric heat; not one thing. I have a problem with that, that we can make $10 million available through the taxpayers' money in this Province to pay for electricity for industrial customers that they are not going to use, the big companies in the Province, but yet at the same time, to the poorest people in our communities we cannot give them a subsidy to cover off their cost of electric heat. There is something wrong with that. I know a lot of people in this Province depend upon electric heat. I know a lot of them are widowers or widows. I know a lot of them are low-income families and I know a lot of them are seniors; especially, seniors and widowers, Madam Chair, because I know many of them have electric heat in their homes. It is their only source of heat and it is what they have to depend upon in order to heat their homes in winter.

We have all seen the horror stories. We have all seen our seniors having to dress in layers of clothes, having to put more quilts and things on their beds just to keep warm at night in the winter. These are people who do not have wood heat because they have no one to get the wood for them. Most of them do not have oil heat because of the inconveniences of dealing with oil. The one convenient heat source that they do have is electric heat. Therefore, they should be able to get a subsidy for that electric heat.

I know a couple, Madam Chair, really well, who live in my home community, who have some electric heat in this house. Their light bills are very, very high every month. They live on a fixed income and they do not have the disposable income to pay for those December, January, February and March months when they have to keep their electricity up to warm their houses. It is very difficult. It takes almost every cent that they have coming into their homes to be able to do that.

When you bring in a piece of legislation like Bill 62, and you ask us to support giving $10 million to industrial companies in the Province, the Abitibis and the Krugers and the Come by Chances, to pay for electricity that they are not even using, I have a problem with that. I have a big problem with that because if the other needs that are there were being taken care of, if the people out there living below the poverty line and the seniors in our society were getting a rebate on their electric heat, I could be a little bit more sympathetic towards this thing. If the people in my district, who pay the highest rates for diesel generated power -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up, Madam Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have a minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave to clue up.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Madam Chair, if the residents in my district and on the North Coast of Labrador who are diesel generated customers were paying an equivalent rate to most other people in the Province, I would probably be a little bit more tolerant to this legislation, and if, Madam Chair, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had not already filed for a rate increase through the Public Utilities Board to ensure that every single person who consumes electricity in this Province gets their rates increased next year, I might be a little bit more lenient, but under those circumstances it is impossible. Combine that with the fact that Abitibi Price would still be operating in Stephenville today if the government would have handled the file appropriately and negotiated a deal that was appropriate - but unfortunately that did not happen. Now, unfortunately, again it is the taxpayers of this Province who will pay the price, along with the residents of Stephenville.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is actually a privilege to stand tonight. In fact, it is a privilege to speak right after the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, because normally for some reason the line up is always that she ends up speaking right after me and she has the opportunity to rebuttal things that I say. She will probably do it again, and that is fine. We will enjoy listening to that.

The fact is there are a couple of things that she had talked about, and one thing was the rebate for the oil. She talked about the fact that we are not doing enough, I should say, for oil rebates and so on and so forth, but the fact is that we are actually doing it. We did not only do it for oil but we also did it for electricity, and that was a good initiative because there are a lot of people who do not burn oil. A lot of people do burn electricity, and more specifically a lot of seniors. I just want to make that point tonight.

I also want to talk about something that I brought up, I think it was last week in the House, and

it actually caused a fair bit of ruckus, and that is the glass being half full. Ever since I brought that up, I have been listening to it all over the place. Again, I can see that the members opposite are getting into a ruckus over this, but the fact is I did bring that up and I did talk about it. I just want to say that, you know, you can look at things in life in different ways. I can tell you that I certainly do and still do prefer to look at things in a positive light. Even when things are tough, you still try to find a positive part of that situation. For myself, it has always worked. I can tell you that I have found success in being positive. Negativity never works for me. Now, if some people want to be negative, I can understand that. If that is the way they want to live their life, they want to talk about the glass being half full, that is fine.

I just want to make a comment on the fact that when I talk about the glass being half full, I am not saying that there are no problems. I am not saying that this Province is perfect and that this government is perfect. I am not going down that road at all because I realize that we have not fixed everything and I am sure that we will not be able to fix everything in the next four years when we are a government, and I am certainly sure we will not fix everything in the four years after that if we are government. It is going to take time. Things cannot be done overnight, but I can tell you that we are moving in the right direction. I am not here tonight to - I do not know what the word is, but I will say - beat up on the Opposition. I am not here to do that, but I just want to talk about some good things that this government is doing. I started to do that last week, and didn't get a whole lot of time to do it, but I just want to take a few minutes again to talk about some of the important things that this government is actually doing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last week, I was talking about the Department of Education and what we were doing in education. Education is very important in this Province. Our government certainly looks at it that way because the fact of the matter is, when the formula told us that we should be laying off teachers, we should be getting rid of teachers, we cannot keep all of these teachers in the system, what did we do? We retained another 151 teaching units that were actually slated for removal. That is good news for the Province. I cannot say that is negative news. That is a positive piece of news that is happening to not only urban Newfoundland and Labrador but certainly rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because that is where our Province is in terms of declining enrolment in our schools. We are doing things to try and make that happen.

We also - and this was an important one - put $2.4 million for the purchase of physical education equipment for intermediate and high school grades. My daughter came home, just after school started, all excited. I said: Victoria, what are you all excited about? She said: Well, we just got this new room for our gym and we got all kinds of exercise equipment and things like that. I said: Is that right? She said: Yes, we never had it before. This is something new. It is a new initiative. We have all of this gear for exercising and for keeping fit. I thought: You know, that is a great thing. The fact is that we did do that. We put $2.4 million into our schools to be ensure that we had those type of things.

At the intermediate levels, Grade 7 to Grade 9, we have a new Newfoundland and Labrador history course in Grade 8, French and English. That is, again, a great initiative because a lot of times we really do not know the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remember, when I was in school, we learned the history of all the different places in the world, and we learned the history of Canada, but we did not really do very much with the history of this Province. The history of this Province is so rich, and it is important that we teach our students. It is important that our students know the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I am very pleased that our government is looking at that.

I was talking to the Member for Placentia, the hon. Minister of Environment. He had said to me that down in the Belleoram area, activity down there is like they have never seen in years and years. That is the activity that is actually moving along. There are apartments being built. There are people moving in. The place is booming. The reason it is booming, of course, is because Cooke Aquaculture has come in there and is putting together an aquaculture program like never before. That is, again, some good positive news. I cannot help it that it is good news. I cannot help it that I am talking about positive things, but these are the positive things that are being done, and this is all good.

The fact is, when you see development like that - I remember when the Harbour Breton issue was on and the Premier kept getting up day after day saying: We are working on this. We are trying to put together a plan for Harbour Breton. We are working very hard.

You know, the Premier was working hard, the Cabinet was working hard and the caucus was working hard to try to find a way and a means to deal with the issues in Harbour Breton, and there were so many naysayers. There were so many people who talked about the class being half empty. There was no way that we could proceed. Harbour Breton was never, ever, going to find any life at all.

I am pleased today because our government, our Premier, had the foresight, the insight, and was ready to put planning together.

MR. REID: How many are working down there today?

MR. ORAM: The hon. Leader of the Opposition says: How many people are working down there?

I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the fact is, we are moving forward. There is a plan in place and people will be working in Harbour Breton, and that is good news for Harbour Breton. You know, you cannot dismay, you cannot put aside good things that are happening in the Province, and that is a direct result of the initiative that this government, that this Premier, took upon himself. The Premier made this happen, the government made this happen, and again I am pleased to be a part of the government that did this.

At primary and elementary we put in place a new music program. Again, our culture and our music heritage is just tremendous. I travel around my district and there are all kinds of festivals in Hare Bay and Dover and Gambo, more specifically, and Glovertown and Eastport, and all across my district, and certainly all across Newfoundland and Labrador, and I can tell you now that our kids are out there and they are now learning more and they are now doing more in the music program thanks to our government because we put more money into music programs in our schools.

Career development courses are implemented in all schools, and this is an excellent, excellent course. Again, another thing that my daughter talked to me about, and the hon. Member for St. John's North certainly knows what it is in terms of skill shortages in this Province, and it is important that we try to develop careers within our schools today, not leave it forever and ever, but we realize the importance of skilled trades, because do you know what? The fact is, even through we have 9,000 people, apparently, who were lined up at the hotel up there looking for work in Alberta, the fact is this: we are short on skilled labour. We are short on skilled labour and we need to promote that. In our schools today we are offering courses to promote career development. Again, I am very pleased that we are doing those kinds of things.

We also invested in infrastructure for schools. You know, a friend of mine actually was involved in the school council in Leary's Brook and he was an advocate for that particular school. I talk about that not because it is in my district but it is in my colleague's district here, the Member for St. John's North, who worked very hard and certainly got that project off the ground. I can tell you that finally - the need has been there for years and years for Leary's Brook, but it is this government that made it happen. Today, they are putting that school together and that is a good sign. It shows that we are moving forward.

MR. REID: Not true. Not true.

MR. ORAM: The Leader of the Opposition can say: Not true. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that I actually have - my friend actually was the chair of that committee, and I can tell you right now that we are moving forward. Whether we cancel it or whether we postpone it, as we say, the fact is, we are doing it. That is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Just a little while ago in Eastport, do you know what happened? We had a fire in Eastport and our school was completely destroyed. What happened? The government could have said: Do you what? Let's just bus all those kids away. We do not need to deal with that now. This is a great chance for us to leave a small rural community. Let's take everybody out as fast as we can. We can probably even cut a deal with the insurance company if we really tried.

Do you know what happened? Our government was committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, our government was committed to Eastport. We just built a new school in Eastport, and I am going to be very pleased to be a part of opening that school on the eighteenth of this month. Those are the kinds of things that this government is doing.

Again, you can be negative, you can talk about the negatives, and I understand that we have not done it all. I understand we have not made everything perfect. I understand there are people in this Province who have very little and they are struggling. We certainly understand that, as government, and that is the reason we put together a new Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Again, the thing I like about what we do on this side of the House, and what we have been doing with our government, is that we have been putting plans in place. That is important because, you know, you can talk about it all day long and you can say we will run and do this and we will run and do that, and we will patch the roof here or we will put a little bit of tar on the roof there, but what we are doing is, we are putting in long-term plans to deal with issues that are actually affecting the people of this Province.

In Budget 2006 we invested $30.5 million and $62 million annually thereafter in almost twenty integrated poverty reduction -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. ORAM: By leave, just to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. ORAM: Just for thirty seconds, just to finish off what I was saying.

We have integrated programs, and spent $62 million a year annually that will focus on the prevention of poverty in this Province. These are things that we are doing, initiatives that we are moving forward on, to ensure that the people of this Province live better. Again, we cannot fix it all but we are working very hard to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wasn't going to rise as quickly again to speak but I had to, after listening to my colleague from Terra Nova District.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I notice that the member for St. Anthony is up again. It seems to me, every time I speak in the House, he has to be finding a way to insult me.

Madam Chair, I have to run through some of the points that the member talked about, and the good news, and the glass is half full rather than half empty. Having said that, I would like to say that my glass is empty right now and I wouldn't mind having a drink of water if the Finance Minister can see fit to order one for me.

Madam Chair, I am going to start on Leary's Brook, the school in Leary's Brook, up here in St. John's North by the Avalon Mall. He waxed eloquently about: We did it. We did the renovations. We put the money there to do the renovations.

Now, I can probably excuse you because you know not about which or what you talk because you were not around prior to 2003; because, if you would check with the Department of Education - your colleague there from Stephenville, who is the minister - you will find that the money was in the Budget, it was in the bank, ready to be spent, with Leary's Brook name on it in the Department of Education, when you took the government in 2003, and it was your government that cancelled the contract.

MR. ORAM: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova, on a point of order.

MR. ORAM: Madam Chair, anybody can promise anything. Politicians are always promising, they say. The fact of the matter is, we did not just promise it, we went ahead and did it. We are the government who actually did it. They just promised it. You cannot go by a promise. You can only go by what you see, and I see tangible evidence of a school being renovated today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, like you say, there is no point of order.

In all honestly and all sincerity, I ask you to go and check because it was not a promise; the money was there in the account with Leary's Brook name on it. Check with the school council who was in place at the time. The money was there. It took some time to make an agreement with Leary's Brook church because it was tangled up. Originally, when I became the Minister of Education in 2003, it was tangled up with the denominational education system. Before I left, that money was cleared for Leary's Brook to move ahead, and when your government came in you postponed it. You said it earlier, you postponed it. The money was there. The money was ready for them to move on it. Your government, of which you are so proudly a part, cancelled it or postponed it and now you are up trying to bluff the people in St. John's North into believing that you were the ones who approved the money.

MR. ORAM: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The money was there, I say to the Member for Terra Nova. All you have to do is go to your colleague on Monday, check with the officials, check with the school council up in St. John's North, and you will find that the money was there. Ask your colleague - you are sitting next to him - in St. John's North. He should know something about it; he is the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: He don't.

MR. REID: He don't? Okay. He doesn't is the correct pronunciation, the correct grammar. He doesn't know. The Member for St. John's North doesn't know. Well, I happen to agree with you because there is a lot he doesn't know, listening to his comments tonight. So, that is one fallacy we cleared up.

Now, he also talked about his colleague from St. John's North, who is going around the Province talking about a skill shortage. I said to his colleague, the Member for St. John's West, who he knows intimately - they are related - I said: At least sit him down and tell him why there is a skill shortage in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is one reason: They are all working on the mainland. Do you know the reason they are working on the mainland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: The reason they are working on the mainland is because they cannot find employment in their home Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If you have jobs - and I challenge the Member for St. John's North or the Member for Terra Nova to get up tonight and tell me where we need carpenters, where we need plumbers, where we need pipefitters, where we need bricklayers, any of the skilled trades that he is talking about - tell me, because I have them in my district who would gladly go to work on those jobs. They would gladly go to work on those jobs, and I will give them a call because I know their addresses and their telephone numbers of many of them who are living in Alberta right now who would be glad to come back. So, you do not have to go out and talk about a skill shortage.

There is a shortage of service sector jobs in this Province right now because they are getting paid the minimum wage of $6.75; but, if you have any of those, send me over a list, any day of the week, any time of the day, and if you cannot get me in the House of Assembly or at my office I will give you my home phone number so you can call me. If you need a carpenter, let me know because I will find you one. If you need a bricklayer or an electrician or any of the skilled tradespeople, let me know because I will find them for you. They will only be too glad to come in from my district or come home from Alberta to go to work on the job that you are going to advertise. Now, those are two fallacies that have been perpetrated in the House tonight.

Now the Member for Terra Nova, who is now sitting in the Chair, talked about what they have done for Harbour Breton. Well, what a joke. What a joke. Obviously you have never visited there or, if you have, it has not been in the last two or three years. That is what I say to the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR (Oram): Order, please!

MR. REID: FPI walked out of that plant two or three years ago, laid off 350 people, direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs that were affected by that closure, and guess how many people, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, are working down there today? None with regard to a fish plant.

The big announcement came out earlier the spring, the Premier applauded it and said: Look at what we have done in Harbour Breton, when Mr. Barry's good, passionate friend - he calls him, pats him on the back, his good passionate friend - went in and took over the operation in Harbour Breton. How many people are working in that operation today?, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, when you said down there a few minutes ago: Just look at what we did for Harbour Breton.

Tell me what you did for Harbour Breton. Find out first, before you make a speech like that, how many people are employed in that fish plant in Harbour Breton today. Because, I will tell you what, there are none. Three hundred and fifty jobs, and there is no one working there. When Mr. Barry made the announcement, he said, by the way - no disrespect for Mr. Barry - he said fifty jobs.

MR. O'BRIEN: There are thirty there now.

MR. REID: There are thirty there now, the Minister of Business tells me. There are thirty there now.

The great things we have done for Harbour Breton. You allowed FPI to pull out of there and gut the community, lay off 350 people and say there was nothing you could do about it. I do not believe for one minute that there was nothing you could do about it. I told you what you could do about it. You would not listen, and now you are saying: Look what we have done for Harbour Breton.

Then, I hear the Minister of Innovation, the fellow who used to be the Minister of Transportation and they moved him out of that, who used to be the Minister of Fisheries, and we all know in the Province why they moved him out of that. We all know in the Province why today's Minister of Rural Renewal was driven out of the Department of Fisheries by the Premier. We all remember that ill-fated, ill-conceived Raw Material Sharing plan that would not allow any rural member to go back to their districts after he brought it in. In fact, there are some of them over there right now, I have been told by their constituents, who have not been back to some communities in their district since he announced the Raw Material Sharing plan because they are afraid.

Then he says, tonight, stands in front of a camera: Look at what we did for Harbour Breton. I can tell you what your government did for Harbour Breton. Absolutely nothing, except for a make-work program. Zero, zilch, that is what you did for Harbour Breton.

After FPI gutted 350 families down there, and laid off 350 people, after that was done, Mr. Barry went in and he promised, by the way, fifty jobs. Now, if that is something for the Newfoundland and Labrador Government to brag about - of which they had no part, by the way. It is not you or your government that is creating the jobs - it is Mr. Barry - but, if you look at 350 gone and the maximum of fifty coming back, fifty are not there today, I will guarantee you that. There are no fifty jobs connected to that fish plant in Harbour Breton today. That is another fallacy you perpetrated in front of the camera here tonight.

That is the Leary's Brook school, that you had nothing to do with except postpone the construction of it. The skill shortage that you bragged about over there with your Member for St. John's North going around the Province talking about a skill shortage, what has he done to fill the void? What have you done? Has he created a job?

You talked about Harbour Breton, and all you did for Harbour Breton. Let's talk about the economic boom. Let's talk about the economic boom in Belleoram. I hope what happens, what has been announced by Cooke Aquaculture, I should say, and the federal government - Cooke Aquaculture is putting in, by far, 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the investment into Belleoram. The federal government is putting in $10 million and you are putting in $10 million. What is Cooke Aquaculture putting in? A couple of hundred million or more, and you are standing here tonight saying: Look what our government did.

You are the minority shareholder, I say. You put in the least amount of money of anybody, and you are bragging about that. I hope that project succeeds, because we need private investment like Cooke Aquaculture.

Now, you were talking about the economic boom in Belleoram. Have you talked to any contractors in the City of St. John's?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: Fifteen or twenty seconds to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: You are talking about the economic boom. I talked to a contractor in St. John's today, who phoned me and said: Gerry, I am a housing contractor. Last year, in 2005, my business was down 65 per cent prior to the year before, in 2004. This year, already, before the year is finished, he is down 70 per cent.

If you can find a boom, I say, and if you can find a glass that is half full instead of half empty, stand up and say it, but when you do it at least have the decency to state it correctly so that there is no misconception out there about what you are talking about.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am just going to have a few comments tonight, mostly to correct a few of the fallacies that have been stated here by the Leader of the Opposition over the past fifteen minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am just going to say that the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about my record as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Well, I can say, with no hesitation whatsoever, I have absolutely no regrets about the decisions I took when I was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I said, when I went into that portfolio, that if I was going to blamed for anything I would be blamed for what I tried to do, not like the previous ministers, that I would be blamed for not trying to do anything. That was the problem with the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He hid behind his desk down in the Petten Building, scared to make any policy decisions, scared to try and implement anything, scared to try and fix the fundamental problems that were in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. He sat by as the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador struggled from year to year, bankruptcy to bankruptcy, wrote off - I have to give a little bit of credit, I suppose; they did write off something like $9 million, I believe it was, that was piled up in debt associated with SCB Fisheries down in Bay d'Espoir, St. Alban's area, but, Mr. Chair, it did not put the aquaculture industry on a sound footing that was going to ensure growth in that industry for the long-term benefit of that region of the Province.

What did we do, Mr. Chair, our government? Just look at the record of this government in the aquaculture sector over the past three years since we came to government on the salmon and steelhead trout side of the industry alone. When we took over government in 2003, the industry was struggling along with about 3,500 tons of production. Where are we now? A scant three years later, Mr. Chair, we have over 6,000 tons of production in the salmonid industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have one of the biggest fishing industry operators in Canada, the Barry Group, now engaged in the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the biggest company in salmon aquaculture in North America engaged in the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: What are the projections, Mr. Chair? What did we do, and how did we accomplish it? I say, Mr. Chair, we did it and we accomplished it because we brought in - we listened to the industry, we consulted with the industry, we laid out a plan, and we stuck with it. We did not sell people false hope. We did not, like the Leader of the Opposition, go down and sell a bill of goods to the people of Harbour Breton about how their plant could be saved on the basis of the wild fishery and the traditional fishery. We did not go down and sell them a bill of goods, like the Leader of the Opposition did, about how they could get FPI's quota to put into the place. We did not go down and tell them a pile of nonsense, as they did in other communities around Newfoundland and Labrador when they were the government. We went down there. We told them the truth. We told them they were in for two rough years. We told them we would stick with them. We told them we would work with them. We told them that if they made the right decisions and with the right support we would turn the industry around down there, and we told them we thought their future was in the aquaculture industry on the Connaigre Peninsula.

What do we have today? Today, we have the Barry Group down there; they have taken over the existing farm. They are putting fish in the water. They are going to ramp up production substantially over the course of the next couple of years. They are probably going to double their production from what it was when they took it over a little over twelve months ago, or approximately twelve months ago.

They are down there right now, Mr. Chair, spending significant amounts of money, the Barry Group, in refurbishing the plant in Harbour Breton. They have, I believe, around thirty people hired on, trying to do that. Are they going to have 350 people refurbishing a plant? No, I expect not. I have not seem 350 people working building a fish plant in Newfoundland and Labrador in my life. I am not real old, but I have seen a few fish plants built and I have heard talk of a few fish plants built, as a number of us here have, and I do not think that I have seen 350, and I do not think anybody else has, seen 350 people building or renovating a fish plant in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not even in the days of make-work projects, building community stages, did we see that, Mr. Chair.

The fact of the matter is, we also put an aquaculture feed financing program in place, got the Barry Group engaged as a result of that. We put an aquaculture working capital - I forget the name of the fund now - this past year. I do not have the right book there - a $10 million fund in place to assist in the growth of the aquaculture industry in this Province. As a result of that, and in co-operation with the federal government, we have Cooke Aquaculture on the South Coast.

Let's just set the record straight on how the Cooke Aquaculture investment on the South Coast stacks up against and measures up against the Barry Group, how it measures up, and how our investment measures up against the private sector investment in that operation.

The fact of the matter is, $152 million is the total funding related to the Cooke Aquaculture deal on the South Coast over three years.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that around $100 million of that is working capital. Around $100 million of that is associated with feeding fish, paying people to feed fish, paying people to run barges and what have you. It is a day-to-day working capital requirement of the Cooke Aquaculture operation on the Connaigre Peninsula, not dissimilar to the kind of expenses that the Barry Group are going to incur in growing their fish on the Connaigre Peninsula and in the waters surrounding the Connaigre Peninsula.

What else? The actual private sector investment in infrastructure is somewhere in the order of $35 million to $40 million. The actual funding from government is $10 million, a direct grant from the provincial government, and approximately $10 million in a direct grant from the federal government.

Those are the facts, Mr. Chairman. There is $20 million against $50 million when it comes to actual infrastructure and capital. The rest of it is working capital expended over the course of three years. Now, the numbers might be off a little bit but that is the order of magnitude anyway. That is not dissimilar from the kind of deal that we did with Barry. The fact of the matter is, we put a couple of million dollars into that in a loan. We are also on the hook for about a $9 million loan guarantee.

Mr. Chairman, we have some credible players engaged in the aquaculture industry on the South Coast and they are going to make places like Belleoram, Harbour Breton, Bay d'Espoir, Head of the Bay, St. Alban's, Pool's Cove, Boxey - I am not going to go and name all of them down there - Gaultois and whatever, the communities that surround the Bay d'Espoir area, the Connaigre Peninsula and spilling over up into the Bishop's Falls area where, by the way, most, if not all, of the Styrofoam containers utilized in the aquaculture industry on the South Coast are manufactured at - I forget the name of the company there in Bishop's Falls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundland Styro.

MR. TAYLOR: Newfoundland Styro. One machine, a couple of years ago, was dedicated solely, as I understand it, to making Styrofoam boxes for the aquaculture industry.

The fact of the matter is, we are going to move from when they were in government at about 3,500 tons per year in production, in a very unstable industry, that - as a matter of fact, six months after we took over government the biggest player in the industry was facing receivership and three months later it went into receivership, and three months later we had them out of receivership and into the hands of the biggest fish company, or one of the biggest fish companies, in Canada, with our support. We are going to go from 3,500 tons three years ago to 6,200 tons this year, 6,500 tons next year and about, if I am not mistaken, somewhere in the order of 17,000 tons the year after.

Now, when they want to talk about aquaculture, when they want to talk about good things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, and when they want to talk about the Connaigre Peninsula, I will put our record of achievement up against their record of achievement any day of the week, any time of the day, anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fact of the matter is, we took some bold initiatives in aquaculture and we didn't tell people a pile of nonsense about how their future lay in what they were doing in the past. We told them if they were going to have a future, it was going to be in something radically different from what their past was.

Now, we took our lumps along the way and, I can guarantee you, Eric Day was ready to kill me on a number of occasions over the past two years. When I walked into Harbour Breton about this time, if I am not mistaken, with the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, about two years ago - myself and my deputy and the member - I can guarantee you, the 100-and-some-odd people who greeted us on the parking lot were not there to hand out Christmas cards to us. I can guarantee you that. When we walked inside the building and there were twenty-five people sitting around the table and I told them that their future had nothing to do with FPI, and that their future was probably in aquaculture, I can guarantee you, they did not exactly wrap their arms around me, and I told them that they were in for two rough years.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, fifteen or twenty seconds to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, we told them what we thought to be the truth, and we took the appropriate measures along the way. We stuck with the message and we stuck with the people.

MS JONES: Now they are all gone (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, some of them have moved away. Some of them have moved away but telling them a lie in 2004 was not going to change that. Telling them the truth gave them the ability to make the decision that they had to make in the short term and telling them the truth in the short term in 2004 allowed us to make the policy decisions and work with the private sector and work with the federal government to get the appropriate infrastructure and investment in place down there so that the people who may be gone away today can come back, and if they do not come back, the people who are down there, their children or whatever, can move into this industry. Mr. Chair, in three years there will be more fish coming out of pens in the aquaculture industry on the Connaigre Peninsula than has traditionally been hauled out of 3Ps in the wild fishery on the Connaigre Peninsula, by far.

Mr. Chair, as everybody in the aquaculture industry in Canada knows, the hot spot for aquaculture growth in North America today is on the Connaigre Peninsula, Fortune Bay, Hermitage Bay, and Placentia Bay. Mr. Chair, as a result of the initiatives of this government, as a result of the work when I was minister, as a result of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture today, the previous Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and this government, the people on the Connaigre Peninsula are going to have a future that they would not have had if we sold them the bill of goods that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Party wanted us to sell to them two years ago.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to have a couple of words. I listened attentively to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development when he spoke. I think it is good that government is investing in aquaculture in the Province and I wish they would invest in aquaculture in Labrador because so far we have been consistently turned down by the provincial Department of Fisheries because they continue to think - although Memorial University and DFO have been doing work up there for years, the provincial Department of Fishery consistently still thinks there is no hope for that kind of industry anywhere in Labrador. Despite what the profs at Memorial are saying in their approach to the Department of Aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador, so far they have not bought in to the idea. We will see what happens.

Mr. Chair, you cannot ignore the fact that even though there are investments in the aquaculture industry on the Connaigre Peninsula, that the closing of the FPI plants and the fishery as they know it is not having an impact, because it is indeed having an impact. We have seen a tremendous number of people out-migrate from that particular area. They actually left in motorcades of twenty-five and thirty vehicles at a time. We know that people had to leave in search of employment because they could not wait the three years for the fish to grow or they could not wait for the government to look at and implement short term measures for them to get through the next few months or the next year. They made a decision and they made a choice that was right. Their choice, unfortunately, was to exit the Province.

Mr. Chair, let's talk about what is happening in the fishing industry as we know it today. The Minister of Finance has not yet released his report on the economy. I do not think I have seen it tabled in the House yet, but it is my understanding that this year the landed value of fish product in Newfoundland and Labrador may have dropped down to less than $400 million, and probably more in the line of about $300 million in landed value of fish in Newfoundland and Labrador, which would bring that to an export market value of probably about $700 million. This is a huge drop.

It was only three to four years ago when we had an export market in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador that reached $1 billion on an annual basis. You talk about all the great things that might be happening in the fishery, but the reality is that landed values are declining. Export values are declining to the tune of $200 million, $300 million and $400 million a year. In addition to that, there are still plants closing. There are still people being laid off. There are still fish off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador which is owned by private companies that is not being fished and not being landed anywhere in this Province, and that is wrong.

We know today that there could be up to forty tons of fish owned by FPI alone that stayed in the water this year, or if it was fished, where was it landed, because it was not in Newfoundland and Labrador. Anytime that any of those companies continue to have ownership of fish stock in Newfoundland and Labrador they hold all of us ransom, because them having ownership of that stock gives them the brokerage power that they need to do whatever they wish with it. If it means closing down a fish plant, if it means harvesting it and processing it at sea, if it means taking it to China and processing it, if it means exporting it all out - raw, whole, fresh out of the water, frozen, whatever the case may be - they have the authority to do that.

Mr. Chair, I have said time and time again that the only way we are going to turn this industry around is if you give the people back control of the fish stock, and that is only going to happen if the government opposite believes in this and is willing to fight for it, but they have to pressure the federal government to stop allocating fish quotas to private sector companies who sell it in the water to put money in their back pocket because that is a huge problem and that is what has gotten us to where we are in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

In my district, the companies, most of the fish plants up there operated by a co-operative, owned by fishermen themselves - they have six plants. They employ over 500 people in the smallest communities around the Province, and they are not-for-profit. The money goes back into the company, goes back into their operations. They have a good marketing strategy, they have good brokers, and it works. The only problem they have is they do not have access to the resource that they need to have. While all of the turbot on the Northern region of Labrador, right on up into the Arctic region, is being allocated to private companies, people in my district are going without this resource.

I say to the Minister of Industry, it is okay to talk about the investments you have made in aquaculture and it is a good investment for the long-term of the industry, but you cannot ignore the reality of the crisis that is in the fishing industry today in this Province. Just because it is the month of December and people are not going out to the stage head like they do in July month, it does not mean the problems have gone away, because they have not. They are going to pop up and hit you in the face again come May of this year; and believe me I know. The problems are there and they have to be fixed, and they have to be worked on.

When my colleague, the Member for Terra Nova, was speaking he talked about promises. He was referring to a school, Leary's Brook. Leary's Brook was a school that was committed to and budgeted for when we were in government, and when they took office they cancelled that school.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Or postponed that school. Thank you for the correction.

They postponed that school, and it was a couple of years later before they revisited to look at actually funding it. The Member for Terra Nova got up and said: What's that, having it in the Budget? A commitment in an election is only a promise. Let me remind hon. members something about governments that make promises, because it was in the election campaign of 2003 when the Williams government went out with a platform that said: We won't lay off public servants. That was the commitment. Full page ads in the daily paper in St. John's, in The Telegram: We will not lay off public servants. On the news, on Here and Now - I will not forget it, I sat down and listened to it. What was the first thing they did? They not only laid off public servants, Mr. Chairman, they tried to roll back their benefits. They tried to renegotiate their benefits, to drop them down, less sick time, less vacation pay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, that was the kind of regressive negotiation that took place within the first year that they were in office. After their full-page ad campaign, we will not lay off public servants, what did they do? They drove them all out in the street. They were out here surrounding Confederation Building. The RNC ran over their budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars that year because they spent all their time up here at Confederation Building escorting the ministers in and out of the confinements of the House of Assembly. That is what was going on because there were so many people out there protesting in the street, because the government made a promise that they did not keep.

Let me remind you of another promise that you made to the Labrador Metis Nation in the middle of an election campaign. The Premier writes a letter to the Labrador Metis Nation, and signed it, saying: We recognize you as a legitimate Aboriginal organization. You forgot all of that, didn't you? You seem to conveniently forget all of that. We recognize you, the Metis Nation of Labrador. The Williams government will make sure that you are recognized; signed, sealed and delivered to the President, who is the current Member of Parliament today for Labrador, of the Metis Nation.

What happened, Mr. Chairman, after the election? Well, let me tell you what happened. I will tell you what happened. It was a few months later when the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Lewisporte, who was the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, went into Goose Bay and walked into a meeting with the Labrador Metis Nation. What did they say? We cannot honour this letter now. We have had a new ruling, a new interpretation from the Department of Justice. We went out and got a new interpretation from the Department of Justice and now we cannot recognize you. That paper I gave you in the middle of an election campaign when I was looking for your vote and signed it, that is not worth the paper it is written on now. That is over and done with, so do not talk about broken promises.

Let's talk about another one: We will not have any violations to the Public Tender Act. Everything that we do as a government we will tender. What happened, Mr. Chairman? The minute you turn your back they are out sole-sourcing contracts to their friends. That is what happens, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Okay. I will conclude my comments after.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I rise with pleasure to speak on Bill 62, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about Supplementary Supply for just over $11 million. I was discussing this with the Minister of Finance, and the thing that struck me about this bill - it is very interesting - is that this is really a bonafide Supplementary Supply bill because when the members opposite were in power they liked to use Special Warrants, in which case when they came back for Supplementary Supply -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS E. MARSHALL: Because when you use Special Warrants, Mr. Chairman, and you bring in Supplementary Supply after the fact, really it is like putting the cart before the horse in that, really, the money has been spent. By the time you came in and asked for approval for Supplementary Supply, the money was all gone. In this case, Mr. Chairperson, Bill 62, the $11 million has not been spent yet. The Minister of Finance has brought in the bill and he is asking for approval before the fact, before the money is actually spent. I think that finally we are back to true democracy.

I would also like to make the point, Mr. Chairperson, that in our Blue Book in 2003 we did make a commitment that we would only use Special Warrants when absolutely necessary. I just want to emphasize, Mr. Chairperson, that we are sticking by our election promise and we are bringing in bonafide Supplementary Supply.

Mr. Chairperson, I was very, very interested in some of the debate that was taking place in this House earlier. I was listening to my colleagues. The MHA for Terra Nova spoke and I heard the Member for Mount Pearl and I believe I also heard the Member for Trinity North. They were going through some of the good things that this government has done over the last three years. There was quite a bit of debate over on the other side of the House as to who is going to take credit for some of these things because some of the members over on the other side where saying: Well, we started it. You guys over there, you just finished it.

I would like to talk about something, Mr. Chairperson, that the members opposite cannot take credit for, and that is our Vessel Replacement Strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: I would also like to say, Mr. Chairperson, that we did it and we are proud of it. We are following through on it. The Vessel Replacement Strategy is quite an excellent document, Mr. Chairperson. There are over 100 pages of information there and I have gone through it twice, actually; quite a lot of detailed information. It is an excellent strategy, if I do say so myself, and we are following through; we just do not have the plan. Now, there has been a lot of debate and a lot of comments on the other side of the House about all of the strategies that we are putting out, but I would like to say that you just cannot get in there and spend money. You have to have a plan, and then you have to follow through with your expenditures. Now, we do have our plan, we have our vessel replacement strategy, and it is an excellent document.

The Minister of Transportation and Works says he has started to follow up now on the strategy and we are starting to implement it. Some of the initiatives that the minister has announced, he has announced the design of two new vessels. I do not think there has been an announcement for the construction of any ferry vessels in this Province, I would say, for at least twenty years. I know we have gone out and we have bought some second-hand vessels and we have tried to retrofit them, and we have been not exactly really successful in what we have achieved in that regard. Anyway, we have announced the design of two new ferry vessels. The objective is that construction is going to start next year, so we are very proud of that.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) next year?

MS E. MARSHALL: Hopefully 2007, next year. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is asking what year. Next year it is going to be, so it is 2007.

I would like also to say, Mr. Chairperson, that in October the minister announced that Poseidon Marine Consultants Ltd. had been contracted to design and develop specs for two vessels, so we are really moving along with our strategy.

In addition to those two new vessels, Mr. Chairperson, we are also going to proceed with the construction of three more vessels over the next five years.

I would like to go back and just talk a little bit more about the vessel replacement strategy, and why we decided that we needed one. Well, the first point is that the Department of Transportation and Works spends over $60 million a year on their marine vessel program, and those are all the ferry services that go throughout the Province, both the Island portion and also Labrador. We decided, when we came to power - actually, I think it might even have been in the Blue Book, and this is another Blue Book commitment that we have fulfilled - that we would have a vessel replacement strategy because quite a few of the vessels were very old. In fact, I think some of the ferry vessels were over forty years of age. I think only two might have been less than twenty years of age, so the fleet was getting to be quite old. We decided that we would look for a strategy and, of course, we went out and we did have a strategy prepared. The strategy has quite a lot of background information. It is very interesting reading and it is on the government Web site. There is quite a lot of information in there on the sixteen ferry vessels throughout the Province, and there are also twenty-one marine vessels. The document does talk quite a bit about the ferries themselves, and also the service. It talks about demographics, it talks about level of service and things of that nature.

The ferry services for Labrador, they aren't included in this strategy. That is going to be subject to a separate strategy. For the ones that are for Newfoundland, on the Island portion of the Province, I would like to say that two of the vessels, I believe, in that group are less than twenty years old. Several are over the age of forty years and then, of course, all the rest are in the middle.

It is very interesting, Mr. Chairperson, one of the things that we were very, very concerned about with regard to the ferry vessels in the Province was the age of the ferry vessels and the cost of maintaining them, and whether we can continue with the life of these ferry vessels because some of them, where they were so old - as I was saying, some are over the age of forty - I think you can probably get around thirty-five years out of them, but once they get up to forty years of age then you are really getting on the outside of their life. So, we had the vessel replacement strategy done. It came in with quite a bit of information. I have already gone through some of the things that we are doing now and also in the very near future.

The strategy itself has indicated a lot of problems with the current vessels. There are some really good photographs in there which show that some of the vessels are in a much-needed state of repair. Actually, some of them, it is doubtful whether certain problem areas can be repaired, but the photos are very interesting. The conclusion in the report is that the entire fleet contains many vessels that are in urgent need of replacement.

The report goes on to state that not only do these need to be replaced because they are getting older, but as they get older they also cost more to operate. Now you are getting into the issue of how cost-effective is it to continue maintaining these old ferry vessels. Even some of the ones that we bought second-hand, while we have gone back and retrofitted them for quite an extensive amount of money, even though we put a lot of money into them, we still have to provide and put a lot more money into these ferry vessels to bring them up to scratch.

I would like to say that this is a document we are very proud of, that we have started to implement, and we are starting to see progress in it.

The report itself, I would just like to speak a little bit about the layout of the report because it is quite comprehensive and it lays out not just a strategy but it goes through a detailed analysis of each of the vessels. It talks about the demographic trends in each of the communities that are served by these ferry vessels, and the demographic changes are also very interesting.

It also talks about the level of service in the communities, the level of service that has been provided. Of course, it talks about things like passenger traffic and vehicle traffic. It talks about the number of emergency trips it makes. It talks about seasonal peaks, like tourism, things of that nature, so it is a very interesting document.

A couple of other things that the strategy talks about - and I was kind of surprised when I saw it in there but, once I saw it, I said: No, that makes sense because, if we are doing a strategy, we are going to look at all aspects of it.

There is a chapter in there, chapter four, that talks about - there is a discussion on - suitably-used vessels. The consultants who went out and worked on the strategy, apparently they went out and looked for used vessels. They were trying to see: Are there any used vessels out there that the government could buy to put into service, probably retrofitted? Of course, the report comes to the conclusion that, no, there are not any available; they would not recommend it.

I have had discussions with the Minister of Transportation and Works -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS E. MARSHALL: May I have leave, Mr. Chairperson?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

I was talking about the discussion on suitably-used vessels and I was saying that the report was recommending that, no, we not proceed in this direction. I have had the opportunity to discuss this with the Minister of Transportation and Works and I was quite pleased to hear that, no, he is not very supportive of going out and acquiring used vessels either, and I guess that it why he has gone ahead and announced that we are going to build some vessels.

Chapter five talks about building ferry vessels, and where they can be built. They can be built in Japan. They can be built in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That also is a very interesting chapter. For anybody who is interested in this area, they should really go on the Web site and read that chapter.

The last chapter in the report, and I found this very interesting, is the financing options that are available if we are going to go out and build ferry vessels. I found that chapter very interesting because I was working in the Department of Transportation and Works a number of years ago when that department had financed and built some ferry vessels in that department.

Mr. Chairperson, I will sit down now and give someone else an opportunity to speak, but I would like to say that we do have an excellent document to work by, that we will be able to use that to determine where we are going to go in the future with regard to our vessel replacements, and I look forward to speaking on this matter at another time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few minutes - I think I have ten, plus fifteen seconds, I think, that the Minister of Finance gave me - so I will try to clue up in that time, but I can get back up later on.

I would address the ferry issue that the Member for Topsail brought up, and I will later on tonight, but before I do that I have a list and an order that I have been following here. I already took the Member for Terra Nova to task on some of the comments that he made.

One I would like to go back to now is a private member's motion that was made by the Member for Humber Valley yesterday afternoon, when she got up and wanted me to vote a word of praise to the Premier for what a great job he is doing on his poverty strategy. Just think about that. She wanted me to get up and applaud - that was the gist of her motion. When she first put it before the House of Assembly she actually had his name in there. I had to bring it to the attention of the Clerk and the Speaker that you cannot talk about people's names in the House of Assembly. The Minister of Finance got up earlier and made reference to that. She wanted me to get up in the House of Assembly at the end of the day yesterday and vote praise, heap praise, upon the Premier of the Province for what a great deal he is doing with the poverty strategy, reducing poverty in our Province.

I found that rather amusing. I find it rather amusing that they could not find anyone else over there to get up and do that, except for the Member for Humber Valley, because some of the seasoned politicians across the floor would have spotted the irony in that and said: I can't do that. Sure, the boys opposite and the general population of the Province are going to laugh at me.

I guess they picked one of the younger ones, or the newer members, to get up. I guess, as well, that the Member for Humber Valley, having listened to Mr. Wescott on CBC Radio last week when he mentioned a whole bunch of people who they have not seen or heard of in the House of Assembly or elsewhere, that maybe she should get up. I have noticed since then that most of them got up and gave a ministerial - not a ministerial - a member's statement. I guess, feeling the wrath of Mr. Wescott, she thought that it would be a good opportunity for her to get up and be seen in the House of Assembly.

Just imagine, asking us and the people in the Province to stand and pass a motion which applauds the Premier for his reduction of poverty in the Province. This right on the heels, by the way, I might add - I think she put this on the floor of the House of Assembly on Monday, Monday afternoon, and Monday morning what was the news on all the radio stations, especially CBC, the lead story in the news? Does anyone remember? She put this on the floor of the House of Assembly on Monday afternoon, about applauding the Premier for reducing poverty in the Province, and the lead story on the CBC that morning, and in the papers that followed later in the day, and on other newscasts, was that there is more use of food banks in Newfoundland and Labrador on a per capita basis than anywhere in the country. More use of food banks in Newfoundland and Labrador than anywhere in the country and, guess what? It was increasing.

The same day, I might add, Mr. Chair, there was a thrift store downtown that could not raise enough money to keep open; a thrift store, where you could go and pick up cheaper products to help those who are the working poor and the poor. That building has to close because they do not have enough money to do the repairs on it, and she is asking me to stand and applaud the Premier on the great strategy he has for reducing poverty. That was the story that morning, and she stood in the House of Assembly that afternoon.

That is the reason, I say, that none of the seasoned politicians would stand to do that, but there might be another reason. Maybe she had to do a bit of penance. Maybe the Premier looked at her and said: Now is your time to do your penance. That is probably the right reason, couldn't find anyone else to stand in the House of Assembly and praise him that day, so I guess there was only one left and she volunteered to do it.

Besides the use of the food banks, and the thrift store closing downtown, she, for some reason, did not see the lineup, like I did, on Kenmount Road a month ago of 9,000 people lining up in a local hotel on Kenmount Road to seek employment elsewhere in this country - namely Alberta, I think, the people who were holding the job fair - 9,000 people. I happened to go up Kenmount Road that day, by accident.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I will tell you what the accident was: I went to buy a fridge, and I went to Sears.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I went to Sears and looked at the fridge and I said there has to be a better price, and I was going out Kenmount Road to link up with Topsail Road because my colleague told me you would probably get a better deal at the - what is the store out there on Topsail Road, the furniture store?

That was where I was going, and I said to myself: What is going on up here today? I will tell you, the only thing that I can liken it to is going to a concert somewhere. There were that many people and that much traffic, they were parked on the sidewalks, they were pulled in everywhere, and all the parking lots were full. Literally folks - I am not lying to you, anyone who drove that road that day will tell you - there were people just walking across the road and up the hill in waves - 9,000 people. What I did not understand was they all had a little envelope, one like this or smaller. It did not hit me until I was coming back down Kenmount Road, having gone to the furniture store out on Topsail road that I heard it, there was a job fair going at The Capital Hotel. Nine thousand people were lined up, and I looked and they were out around the building and up the hill into the parking lot of that new shopping division that is up there were the Home Depot is, up and into that, people lined up on a cold day, with snow flurries mixed in rain. to look for a job in Alberta.

The Member for Humber Valley stands and says how proud she is to honour the Premier's job that he is doing with reducing poverty in this Province. Well the only thing I could gather from what I was seeing up there and the story that she was trying to spin in the House the other day is, you might be reducing poverty in the Province but it is by driving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out of the Province. That is all I can say. I honestly believe that you were conned in or ordered into making that, that day, to praise the Premier because he was getting nailed on a lot of issues in recent days.

She talked about the reduction in poverty in the Province, when what were the issues of the day, besides the food banks having more calls from people in this Province than any other in the country, besides the job fair on Kenmount Road, besides the Thrift Store closing downtown? There was another issue that the Premier did not like and he had to put a distraction up there, so he had to talk about reducing poverty. Well he did reduce some poverty while this was going on. He did reduce some poverty. He was cutting a cheque for $15 million for his friends and his associates. That was a reduction in poverty at least for a very small group, I tell the Member for Humber Valley. That was a reduction in poverty because the individuals who are on the receiving end of that $15 million will not be lining up on Kenmount Road for a job fair to go to Alberta. They will not be using the Thrift Store on Water Street and they will not be going to a food bank, I say to the Member for Humber Valley. That was one of the issues that was on the front burner in the Province that day, the Premier giving $15 million to his friends.

I will tell you another issue that was on the agenda that day and on the front burner, because on any stove there are two front burners. That was one of the issues, the $15 million he was giving to his friends, and on the other one was his lavish spending on fur coats for Ralph and Mrs. Klein. That was another issue that was out there, along with the $200,000 he spent on booze, food and entertainment for a bunch of Premiers who came into the Province this summer. I guarantee you, there are some people in the Province who will not have to go a food bank because they made a lot of money from this government.

They will not talk about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent over in the Humber Valley Resort, this special place, this place where the Minister of Innovation, the Minister of Natural Resources, loves to hold a conference, because they are the most lavish accommodations in this Province and probably some of the most lavish accommodations in the country. That is the reason that the Premier wanted to get the people's minds away from this lavish spending; $30,000 on sweaters for these guests, $8,000 on fur coats, $24,000 on mugs and plates.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: Fifteen seconds to clue up?

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: Mr. Chair, I am not finished with the Member for Humber Valley, but after that I have to talk about the Member for Mount Pearl, the comments he made, and after that I will get up and address the ferry issue that my good friend from Topsail talked about tonight. I am doing all of those before you close unless the Minister of Finance wants to put the bill and shut me up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hopefully, I will give the member opposite someone else to talk about after I get my ten minutes in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I know he is waiting eagerly to have a few words.

Mr. Chair, it is certainly good to stand up and say a few words on Supplementary Supply. I would just like to say that the people on the other side of the House like to portray the fact that they are a very left-winged group and that we have no social conscience whatsoever, and he talks about food banks and the sort, and we don't do anything for poverty.

First of all, it is my first time speaking on a bill in the House and I certainly want to welcome the new Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,

AN HON. MEMBER: The Official Opposition.

MR. FRENCH: Some say they are the Official Opposition. She talks quite a bit about social issues. Like I said, I want to welcome her here. God knows I worked hard enough to try and keep her out of it, but I am glad that she made it, and I want to congratulate my opponent at the time.

Mr Chair, the Member, in particular, for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talks about left-leaning issues. I guess I would like to think that I am a red Tory personally, and most of the people on this side of the House are what I would class as a red Tory. We all have a very social conscience, Mr. Chairman. It is not always about squatting the pennies or squatting the nickels and making pennies. It is certainly about the social conscience on this side of the House.

I would like to talk a little bit about that before I get into some of my district stuff, Mr. Chairman. In the past year, the members opposite talk about drugs, you know they want more drugs covered, the minimum wage increased and so on. I would like to address a couple of those issues, Mr. Chairman.

We have had an increase of $6.5 million in funding, Mr. Chairman, over three years for the addition of three new vaccines for children in our school programs. That certainly will help the health of the children in our schools. We have put $4.1 million in to improve children's dental health care. Mr. Chairman, what can we say about kids who - under twelve-years-old now any child gets free dental care. I think that is very, very important because that is going to save families an awful lot of money. It will certainly help children and certainly put children on the right path down the road to looking after their teeth, Mr. Chairman, and save the parents in the Province an awful lot of money.

Mr. Chairman, we have committed to investing $1.6 million in 2005 to a total of $16.8 million over five years to enhance the quality of accessibility of child care. We have heard a lot of talk about child care recently. Members opposite talk about it. There is no doubt there are issues. I spoke to a woman recently in my district who runs a daycare, and sure there are always issues, there are always going to be issues in daycares and so on. I take my hat off to the Minister of Health. He has had the association in. He has met with them. We are creating approximately 500 new spaces, new subsidized spaces, throughout the Province, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, we are headed in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, these are all social issues that this side of the House is dealing with.

Another one, Mr. Chairman, is $32.8 million annually to expand the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. I know I heard the member opposite talk recently about another drug being added to the list. There is nobody on this side of the House who would not want to see every drug known to man paid for, especially for our children and our elderly.

MR. TAYLOR: At least the legal ones.

MR. FRENCH: At least the legal drugs, I agree.

Mr. Chairman, we have to be reasonable about this. When we came here - and we are still facing a $12 billion deficit, we are facing a $1 billion annual deficit, Mr. Chairman - we had to get funding under control. People talk sometimes about the $2 billion that we got, that we should have spent it other places, but by investing the $2 billion into the Teachers' Pension Fund it frees up $240 million annually, Mr. Chairman, to put into new things like extending the drug program. I think there have been thirty new drugs added to the list over the last two years. There have been cancer drugs and others; Alzheimer's drugs. I have had people in my district call me about Alzheimer's drugs and wanting it covered. Certainly I brought it to the table, like many others did around here, and lobbied to have another drug covered under the drug prescription program. We have added drugs for cancer. Breast cancer drugs is another drug we have added. To say that we have done nothing is certainly incorrect. We continue to try to live within our means and certainly help and look after many of these social issues.

Madam Chair, if I could just move now to the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I guess, when I was going around knocking on doors - I guess the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, much like myself, will be knocking on doors twice in one year too. I know what that is about. I spent a lot of time knocking on doors talking to people and finding out the issues. One of the main issues that I did run across was a number of people on social services or HRLE. One of the biggest things they said to me: Terry, if you can do anything, can you get us a raise? They are on income support, they have not had a raise in years and year and years. We put $5.5 million into that program and increased their rates by 5 per cent. That was a major increase for some of these families. It allowed them to buy the food, clothing and extra things that they needed. Would we have liked to increase it more? Absolutely. Will we look at increasing it in the future? Absolutely. But we are living within our means and trying to look after some of the social issues that are out there.

Of course, we hear a lot about our Poverty Reduction Strategy. This is part of our Poverty Reduction Strategy. It is something that we outlined. We put a $13 million investment in it last year, Madam Chair, and we are headed in the right direction. These are all social issues. This is about looking after people in our society, whether it be on education, whether it be on health, whether it be on Income Support. There is a very big social conscience on this side of this House.

There is $750,000 put in, Madam Chair, to lower the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing tenants with employment earnings. What was happening, we had people living in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing who were working people - we have a lot of people who are working people living in housing units. We reduced their rent to try to give these people the ability to get on their feet and live quality lives.

Also, under that department, we put $500,000 into education incentive programs, so people who are on Income Support have the resources to come off Income Support and move into the labour force. It has shown great dividends. I have had calls recently from my district from people who were able to bridge the gap and get back into the workforce. I salute these people. This program is designed to help bridge the gap and help them get back into the workforce.

Four hundred and thirty thousand, Mr. Chairman, for a job start benefit to help singles and families in that transition to work that I just talked about, to move from income support. People want to work in this Province. That is one thing about a Newfoundlander or Labradorian, they want to work, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, another thing that we did was eliminate the clawback from the universal child care plan on income support clients. What was happening was, they were getting the money and it was being clawed back, given with the left hand and taken back with the right, Mr. Chairman. We eliminated that so people on income support, people receiving the child care plan, the child tax credit and so on, could keep it in their pockets to help benefit the children of this Province, Mr. Chairman.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, we heard some talk about was the minimum wage. To say that we have ignored the minimum wage certainly is not accurate. We have done quite a bit for the minimum wage. Next year the minimum wage will be $7 in this Province, in January. Would I like to see it at $27? Absolutely! Of course, I would Mr. Chairman, but we are getting there. We are bringing it up. We increased it almost 20 per cent, Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of years. Mr. Chairman, we are headed in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk a little bit about my district if I could. There are a couple of issues of how programs that this government has brought into place have helped my district and have benefitted the district. To me, every member in this House will be judged on how they represent their district, Mr. Chairman. That is the most important thing. I hear tell of politicians now who have retired, and to me the biggest compliment that you can be given as a former politician is that, they were good constituent people and they worked for the people in their district and tried to accomplish some things in their district.

Mr. Chairman, this government has gone down a road with plans of various forms to allow us as MHA's to tap into to get things for our districts. I guess, the first thing I would like to talk about is the Provincial Roads Program. That is a $60 million program. One time, when people opposite were on this side of the House, that went as low as $5 million in one year; $5 million. Mr. Chairman, it is significant. We had to do something to increase the road work in this Province. I can tell you for a fact that I could not remember seeing an asphalt spreader on route 60 for a long, long time; I can assure you. There was one place in particular in Upper Gullies - I used to call it the Gully Rapids because when you went over it in your car, Yes Ma'ams or whatever you want to call it, you had to slow down or you would end up in the ditch next to it. The only thing that happened on that stretch of road there, Mr. Chair, was the sign changed. Every couple of years the sign would blow down and they would put up a new sign, warning you about the bumps coming ahead. They probably spend $400 or $500 in signs to make sure that people didn't go off the road.

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I could just clue up on that little bit of road work there. Give me fifteen seconds, which seems to be the popular amount of time tonight.

Mr. Chair, right now in CBS and Holyrood what we see is a stretch of almost brand new blacktop. Now, we still have a little bit of work. I want to thank the Minister of Transportation who has always come to my side. As a matter of fact - I go off the track - one of the most successful meetings I have had, since being here in government, is with the Minister of Transportation and Works. We brought in a town council that had a number of issues, and within several weeks, Mr. Chair, those issues were looked after and corrected, and I want to take my hat off to the Minister of Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: What a minister!

Mr. Chair, I just want to say we will do some more work next year hopefully, and continue meeting with the minister. Right now, what we have down through the valley in Holyrood, from the ridge in Holyrood right on down to the Irving in Holyrood, and then we leave Seal Cove - we just had a new stretch of road put in Seal Cove. From Foxtrap now to Seal Cove, with a couple of small sections, Mr. Chair, we have just about recapped the whole of Route 60.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be back to say a few words later. I want to talk about municipal infrastructure and so on that has benefitted my district. Mr. Chair, thank you for the time and I will be back later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to stand tonight and to speak on the occasion of Bill 62, but before I do I want to thank the hon. Member for CBS for welcoming me. I hope he won't mind if I say that he is really making me feel pretty good here tonight. I am realizing that, wow, not only did I win an election, I won an election not against a candidate, I won an election against a whole team. Boy, do I feel good. I feel pretty powerful. It makes me feel good. Thank you.

Now, I turn to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Women can work wonders.

MS MICHAEL: Woman can work wonders. Thank you. Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR (Ms S. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me speak about Bill 62. I find Bill 62 very, very interesting. I would like to say again to the hon. member from CBS, fine, I appreciate all the stuff that he talked about and the things that this government has done, but think how much more could happen if you had another $10 million or another $15 million, money that you are spending in ways that I am really questioning.

This government across on the other side likes to say that it is the government who does not believe in giveaways, but you know this Bill 62 is a giveaway. That is what this is about. Not only did Abitibi walk away from Stephenville, not only did it walk away without doing anything for the people, not only did it walk away and the people did not even gain from the buildings that were left, but they walked away and left a $10 million responsibility that now the people of this Province have to take on their shoulders. It is their burden. Well, if that is not a giveaway, I do not know what it is. I think that the hon. members who form the government on the other side of this House better think about what they mean when they say they do not believe in giveaways.

What happened in Stephenville is not the fault of the people in Stephenville and it is not the fault of the people in this Province. What happened in Stephenville should be taken on by the people who caused it. The people in this Province should not be made to feel guilty because this $10 million is there having to be paid.

I am looking at the October 5 press release from the Minister of Natural Resources which told us that government was going to contribute to Hydro's Industrial Rate Stabilization Plan. I read it and it is like I am supposed to be really feeling sorry for Abitibi, I am supposed to be really feeling sorry for these corporations. Well, you know, a corporation has to realize that it is responsible for everything that is in its contract. If they were part of this plan, as they were with regard to the stabilization plan, then they knew they had a responsibility right up until 2007, but they were allowed to walk off without having to worry about that responsibility. Now government just takes if for granted that they will make this decision. They have the majority. We cannot stop you and you are going to do it.

When I vote against this, it is going to be a symbolic act. I cannot make it stop. I wish I could say I can vote for it but I cannot. I am dismayed, too, by the fact that government put all the expenditures together because I think the $10 million should have been one bill on its own and the rest of the money should have been another bill. That has happened with other expenditures in this session. I would have been happy to vote for the legislative expenditures, they are all legitimate, but, no, I am not happy to vote with regard to the $10 million to cover Abitibi's responsibility. No, I will not be able to vote for the bill. Like I said, it is not going to stop government, you have the majority, but I hope people will realize, when they know that we did not vote for the bill, they will understand why we did not and they will agree with us.

Let's think about what government is saying to us. They do not want the companies, who are part of this plan with Abitibi, to carry the burden. They do not want them to have this burden on their shoulders and carry it. That is basically what the October 5 press release says. Yet, you are expecting the people of this Province to carry the burden. They are carrying it by default because this is another large sum of money that is not being used for the people in the Province. Instead it is being used for the corporate sector, and that bothers me a lot.

Let's think of some of the burdens that people in this Province are carrying that I would ask government to think about. One is - as my colleagues on this side of the House have been talking about, but I want to talk further about - the burden of the cost of electricity; a burden which is bad enough on the Island and which is absolutely unbelievable in Labrador. I want to add to what my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said earlier this evening when she talked about the situation in Labrador. Not only are they paying exorbitant prices, they are getting so little for their money because people who are paying $160, $170, and $180 a month on the South Coast of Labrador are only getting lights. That is all they are getting. They are not using electric heating. They use wood heat or other heat but they do not use electric. They are only getting lights for that cost. They are not getting all of the amenities for that cost, that we are getting here in the city and paying much less. If we want to talk about burdens, why isn't the government wanting to remove that burden from the shoulders of the people in this Province?

A few weeks ago, the first week that we sat, November 21, I brought up the issue of the home heating fuel rebate. The Minister of Finance told me, told us, that he had put together a paper for Cabinet. That paper would be going to Cabinet and he could not control how Cabinet would deal with it. Here we are now, it is December 7, and we still have not heard anything with regard to the home heating rebates. If we are interested in burdens, let's think about that burden. The snow is on the ground now and people still do not know what is going to happen. I know this is a year by year thing, I know it is not a program, but surely the government in its largesse, if it has $10 million to give away so blithely, surely this government in its largesse should be willing to, once again this year, look at the home heating fuel rebate. Since they are so interested in removing the burden with regard to electrical costs, I think this government this year should be looking at a rebate for those who have electrical heating.

I would like to refresh the memory of my colleagues on the other side of the House, especially of the Minister of Finance, because in the year 2000 - I was not here in the House at the time but some of the colleagues on this side were over on that side, but I remember it, when the then sitting government did provide a $100 rebate for low-income households that use furnace oil. It was not great but it was a beginning step. At the same time that they did that, the current Minister of Finance, who was sitting in Opposition and was the Opposition Finance critic, said that he was appalled that the Liberals used their majority in the House of Assembly to vote down a resolution he brought in calling upon them to also give a rebate to those using electrical heat.

In 2003, the current Finance Minister, who was then the critic, brought a resolution into this House saying that the rebate the then government brought in should cover not just heating oil but also electrical. I want to quote what the minister said at that time: The Liberals have shown callous disregard for the many people in this House on low and fixed incomes who depend on electricity as the primary source of heat in their homes. Many of these people -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Just fifteen seconds, please, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: I guess my comment that I want to make to the minister and to those on the other side of the House is, if it was callous disregard in 2003, I am assuming it is still callous regard in 2006. If it was callous regard for the Liberals, it is now callous regard for my colleagues across the room. If Cabinet has not yet made its decision, than I am urging Cabinet to no longer have callous regard and to bring in both rebates.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for St. John's North.

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your protection from my colleagues across the House.

I am delighted to rise tonight to speak on Bill 62, a bill on Supplementary Supply. I would like to begin by referring to my colleague from Port de Grave, who referred tonight earlier on - I believe he referred to our Budget 2005, and quoted, I think it is Great Big Sea, the words from their song: Our ship hasn't come in yet. I would like to remind the hon. Member for Port de Grave, although the ship might not have come in, it is a long range plan and at least this government is now in place and we are still afloat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDGLEY: No, I do not want to disparage the member too much because I noticed all day long that he shops at the same fine clothiers that I do. He has on the same Christmas necktie. We both shop at the Dollar Store, or Buck or Two, whatever it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Madam Chair, Bill 62, Supplementary Supply, is an indication of the fiscal responsibility that this government is operating with. I am going to go back to the comments that were made about Leary's Brook earlier on tonight. The hon. Leader of the Opposition would lead people to believe - in fact, I will give them credit, they did promise to put an extension on Leary's Brook school. They did their best, but the fact of the matter remains, the extension did not get built.

The Leader of the Opposition, when he went on earlier tonight, indicated to people - and his phrase, I believe, exactly was: We had the money in the bank. Now, that would lead people to believe that they could have gone down to the bank and said: We would like the $1.4 million that we have there in our savings account to put an extension on Leary's Brook. When he said, we have the money, we put it in the Budget and we have the money in the bank, what he really meant was that they were prepared to put on one of those oven mitts that they advertise on TV, I believe it is Ov Glove, because the credit card was so hot at the time you could not actually touch it. What he meant to say, Madam Chair, was that they were prepared to put another $1.4 million onto an existing deficit in 2003-2004, which was somewhere in the vicinity of $900 million. This Province was going in the hole that year $900 million on top of the existing debt of somewhere in the vicinity of $12 billion to $13 billion. They would lead us to believe that they had the money in the bank.

The fact is that we did, in fact, delay putting an extension on Leary's Brook because we operated with a sense of fiscal responsibility. We do not have the money to build that school right now. We do not have the $1.4 million to put the extension on the school, and we deferred it again a second year. It was not until the past budget that this government actually approved the expenditure of approximately $1.4 million or $1.5 million. The extension is now under construction and the fact is, it is not putting this Province any further in the hole. We are now operating, as we saw in the last budget, close to a balanced budget. It is one thing to say we made the promise and we had the money in the bank, but that is altogether a false picture.

I would like to offer a couple of comments in terms of the references that have been made to the Skills Task Force, that we have been travelling the Province since the month of August. Actually, the Skills Task Force was formed in the month of March by the Minister of Education. Through the months of August and September we went through the Province and made some seventeen different consultations, a couple in Labrador and fifteen on the Island part of the Province. We did this because the Province presently is in the midst of, I would say, perhaps the most challenging times that we have been in, not in our history necessarily but certainly in a long time. At the present time, about half of the working age population in the Province is now on the Avalon Peninsula. When we referred to the movement from rural Newfoundland, there is no doubt about it. When we look at another statistic, we know that in the last fifteen years our population has shrunk by some 10 per cent.

We can stay here all day long, and it is now 9:30 or 9:35 in the night, or we can stay here until 1:00 o'clock in the morning, and come back again next week and we can say that is your fault - no, it's not, it's your fault; no, it's your fault - but that does not solve any problems. What we have to do is recognize the problem and work together as representatives sent to this House of Assembly, from all parts of the Province, to try to come up with constructive ways to meet the challenge that faces not just us but faces all the people in this Province.

Another frightening statistic is the aging workforce. Presently, in terms of our workforce, twenty-four years and under, in the ten-year period from 1991 to 2001, that younger workforce of twenty-four and under has decreased by about 39 per cent to 40 per cent, while at the same time, on the other end of the spectrum, the older workforce, those in the vicinity of forty-five to fifty-four, has gone up by a staggering 82 per cent. It is almost, if you graph that out, like one of them is going down and the other is going directly up at a very high rate.

At the same time, the birth rate for the past year, for the first year in our history, the number of deaths exceeded the number of births in this Province. Now, you do not have to be a wizard in mathematics, like our hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, to figure out the fact that if you have more people dying than you have people being born then the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDGLEY: The fan club for the hon. Minister of Finance just kicked in and kind of distracted me briefly. I know they are all fans of the minister, but we will just ask them to restrain themselves for a few minutes.

If we look at the statistics, and we look at the same time in terms of all these demographic changes, if we look at the challenges that are across not just this Province but right across the nation and even globally, there is a competition right now for a skilled workforce.

I will refer later on, if I have time, to the short-sightedness of the hon. Leader of the Opposition when he asks if you need an electrician or if you need a carpenter. The fact is that over the next while we are going to need many more than an electrician or a carpenter, so that is kind of a short-sighted view of the whole thing.

If you look at the demographics and the statistics that are facing the Province right now, you might be inclined, as I have said to a few people on a few occasions, to buy into the fact of Wayne Chaulk or Kevin Blackmore and the guys when they say: She is gone; I have never seen her as bad.

I am not sure, Madam Chair, if it is parliamentary to use this, but it is the word of a song. They might even say: The arse is gone out of her.

I am not sure if arse is a parliamentary word, but it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: It would depend on the context.

MR. RIDGLEY: It would depend on the context, I am told. I am quoting the lyrics of a song.

What we have to do in this Province is get down to the bottom where they go in that song or that recitation and they say: The arse is not necessarily gone out of her. Then they turn it around and say: Boy, she's not all that bad, is she? Do you know what? They work themselves back to where they all agree that she is, in fact, perfect.

I do not think that any of us in this House, on that side or on this side, will agree or come to any kind of consensus in terms of saying that she is perfect in this Province - far from perfect right now, Madam Chair. I do not think anyone is delusional enough to think that it is perfect, but the fact is that we are blessed here with tremendous natural resources. I refer not only to our forestry and - as we were going about on our consultations throughout the Province, perhaps the most intriguing comment that we heard was down on the Connaigre Peninsula when somebody said: While you are thinking about all of the skilled trades and so on, like that, don't forget - again the Member for Port de Grave referred to it earlier on tonight, they could not find deckhands to go out to sea - that the backbone of this Province for a long time has been the fishery, and what are we going to do about the loss of fishing skills as you are focusing on millwrights, plumbers, welders, carpenters and so on?

That is an intriguing comment, I think, Madam Chair, that we have to look to in the long term. Are those skills going to be lost in this Province? Again, I am not entirely sure. The fact is, we are blessed here with natural resources.

We heard earlier tonight, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune referred to the disappointment that exists in terms of the fact that Hebron is not going ahead. In fact, there was some disappointment when it was announced that Hebron would not be going ahead. Do you know what? On the streets I heard a lot of people say: Tell the Premier we are 100 per cent behind him. Stick to his guns, because -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDGLEY: Can I get my fifteen seconds, Madam Chair, just to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. RIDGLEY: The fact is, Madam Chair, Hebron could very easily be going ahead but traditionally we have been too willing to jump and say: Yes, please, here, do it, do it, do it, because we need the jobs. This Province will be a lot better off if we stick to our guns and we get the maximization of our natural resources.

Thank you for your time, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to have another few words this evening. I listened with great interest, and I have to agree with what was said on the other side of the House with the funding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Don't get excited. Don't get too excited.

- with the funding that has gone into the dental program, the funding that has gone into, like the Member for Conception Bay South said, the new drugs, and all the new paving that has gone on the Trans-Canada. That is all wonderful, but I have to say to the hon. members opposite: You have to realize, the wealth that you are enjoying, where it actually came from. I take you back to the Atlantic report, which goes in and talks about Newfoundland and Labrador, what is going to happen here in 2007, and the growth that we are supposed to encounter. They list three projects, three offshore oil projects. Voisey's Bay, which was a project, was worth nothing, had loopholes in it that you could put big transport trucks through. The other one they were referring to, that is going to come on stream this year, is Duck Pond. That is what we are basing it on, the wealth that we have enjoyed over the last three or four years. So, if you are going to take credit, make sure that you explain to the people of this Province why we enjoy the benefits that we do today. When you take credit for that, you have to take the lumps that are going to come with it.

I have to say, it explains in this as well the out-migration. Now, we all know what out-migration happened in this Province over the number of years, back when the moratorium came and the whole bit. This report - it is worth your while to read it, and I am sure you probably have - shows how the out-migration goes back to 1996. I know it is beyond then, but the chart here shows from 1996 to 2002, 2003, it almost went down to about 500 out-migration. In 2004, the climb begins again, 2004, 2005, 2006, we are up to 6,000 that have gone out of this Province, and here we are talking about Bill 62, where we are looking for a sum of $11,152,000, and we know where $10 million of that money is going.

Madam Chair, it also explains to us in this report, and it goes on to say: Aside from new oil production, White Rose and mining activities at Voisey's Bay, the overall economic performance in Newfoundland and Labrador this year can be described as subdued at best. They go on to talk about the retail sales, how it is the weakest in Canada, here in this Province. They also mention that the Province's employment level is expected to remain flat in 2007. Retail sales with limited gains in sales revenue. The cooling of residential construction is the lowest since 2001. So, if you are talking about the wealth that you are enjoying, you have to realize what projects and who was in power when those projects stated. It all goes hand in hand, Madam Chair.

Here we are talking about, I wonder what can be done for the food banks in this Province for the $15 million that we hear talked about that is going into the fibre optic deal? Can you imagine what could happen to the food banks in this Province with the $10 million that we are debating here tonight to be paid - what came about, about the closure of the Stephenville mill? Just imagine what can happen to the food banks, and the young children and the people of this Province, with the $1 million-plus for the branding that we hear talk of, and the sign outside our building. Can you imagine what can happen, what can be done, with the $1.4 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: I knew this was coming, Madam Chair. I knew this was coming. Like I said to the Member for Mount Pearl: You have to take the bad with the good, brother. If you can praise how good this Province is, you have to take the bad with it as well.

Can you imagine what would happen for the children of this Province with the $10,567 that was spent for a private dinner for the Premiers of our country? Can you imagine what you would do for the food banks in this Province with the $155,000 spent for meals and meeting rooms at the hotel with the Premiers' Conference - $155,000? Can you imagine what would happen and how proud the food banks would be in this city if they had the $83,864 that was used in meals and beverages when the Premiers' Conference was here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: We heard this week that 63,000 people in 33,000 families throughout this Province live in poverty and, included in that, there are 19,000 children in this Province, as we speak, who live in poverty.

We are talking about how good it is in this Province and, I admit, there are a lot of good things happening in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - but we have to realize what projects are going on in this Province, what brought about this wealth and the change around in our economy.

Outside of the oil production, outside of Voisey's Bay, outside the mining projects that will come on stream this year, there is very little happening with economic development in this Province. All we have to do - we hear the Premier talking about federal relationships. I remember sitting in this House when he would look across the way and say: I wouldn't even think about taking anyone on our side to Ottawa - because why we were in the state we were in was because of the relationship that we had with the federal government. He goes up, and because the Prime Minister was in a minority situation he comes home and comes down the escalator waving his hands saying: Boys, we got her, we got her. We all know today, that is the last thing he got out of the federal government. He is going around this country now challenging the Prime Minister. He is taking on premiers of other provinces. That is what is happening, Madam Chair.

Here we are in this Province, we have people in Stephenville who are crying out. We heard today here in the hon. House what is happening in the Harbour Breton area. Yes, only this past summer we were on the Burin Peninsula, and I am going to tell you the area of Marystown is totally devastated with what is happening. Madam Chair, this is what it comes down to. There is no economic development in this Province. There is no plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, outside of what I just mentioned and what is mentioned in this report.

Madam Chair, we can get up and ridicule from one side or praises from the other side, I have to say - and someone said today, I think it was the hon. Member for St. John's North, we have to stick together but we have to be honest with each other. It is no good to get up and say that everything that is wrong in this Province was caused by the former Administration when we know that the major projects that are bringing the wealth into this Province today came from a former Administration. I am sure if they were in power the same thing would have happened. That is not the issue. Here we are always condemning and blaming someone else for anything that is wrong, but if there is anything good that happened in the past: Oh, it is only because of us that is taking place.

Madam Chair, just to conclude, I want to say I ask all hon. members that when we stand - we were sent here by the people from our districts - to be honest with each other. If something is good, give credit where credit is due, but if times are bad you have to wear that as well.

With that, Madam Chair, I will take my place.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I am glad to get up and speak to the Supply bill. I would like to respond to some of the things the hon. member across the way spoke of.

Madam Chair, they talked about food banks over there, as if we do not care about people going to food banks. Let me tell you, we do care. It is a concern, it is a big concern for us. They pointed out things: Well, if you did this, how much money could you put into food banks? He mentioned some of the things we did: Well, if you had that much money, what could you do with food banks?

Madam Chair, what about the $181,000 that the previous government put out for the campaign ad for the Lower Churchill that did not come to fruition, $181,000? Where would that go to a food bank? If you remember, the year previous to the election the previous government had full-page ads in The Telegram and in all the papers throughout the Province, and they showed them: Here is what we did. They already announced it, and I believe the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said: Well, the drug plan was announced a while ago, why is the minister out doing it now? What they did, Madam Chair, they rehashed the whole year in The Telegram. Every time you opened up The Telegram there was an ad there: Here is what we did. The reason they did that - because they never communicated anything. Not only that, not only did they not communicate anything, what they had in there was very frivolous anyhow.

Madam Chair, when we talk about what has been done for food banks, we are doing a lot, as much as we can right now. We are very concerned about it. Things have to go on in government. Things have to go on because we have to run the day-to-day operations. As pointed out by my colleague from CBS, this side over here does have a social conscience. We do have a big social conscience and we have shown that in our last, previous Budget.

Madam Chair, over there they are talking about the rebate for home heating, the fuel rebate. What they talked about is that the Minister of Finance said: Well, we have not included what he said in the previous times. Madam Chair, at no time did the other government, previous to us, include electricity in the rebate; no time. As a matter of fact -

MR. REID: We did not have $2 billion either.

MR. DENINE: No, because you would have settled for a lot less than the $2 billion, let me tell you.

At no time did they put it in. The highest they ever got was $100. We did not go that way. What we did is we expanded the options for people out there in the low income. We started off with the $30,000 and worked on down through on a sliding scale. The people who were at the lower part of the scale would get up to $400, Madam Chair; $400. That is four times what they ever thought about. Also, Madam Chair, when they had -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would pay attention. I paid attention to him, intense attention to what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never interrupt him.

MR. DENINE: I never interrupt him, no.

Madam Chair, when they came out with their fuel rebate it was down to $20,000 and that was it, so there were a minimum number of people who could have gotten that. We expanded it to up to $30,000. Again, that was done on a sliding scale.

Also, the Finance Minister said he is ready to bring something forward. He brought it to Cabinet. Cabinet is considering it. I do not know what it is, I am not in Cabinet. I am sure the minister will bring something down in a short while. Let me tell you, it will be as good, and I have a funny feeling probably even better, than what was happening before. I have no idea, that is only my summation of it; no idea.

Madam Chair, the hon. member across the way said: When they talk about school construction, they never talk about all the new construction. Sure, there were new schools built. There is no question about that. But what happened is, the existing infrastructure in the schools at the time was totally, totally neglected. Madam Chair, we have spent millions, tens of millions of dollars to repair leaks. Leaks have been the main contributor to the mold we are experiencing in some of the schools now.

Madam Chair, let me tell you, there was something here about the $10 million that we put into construction -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, I cannot hear myself think.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, when we go back to the mid-1990s, the amount per square foot given for maintenance was seventy-five cents. Guess who rolled it back to fifty-five cents? The previous government. Then they have the audacity to stand and criticize us because there is a mold problem? Madam Chair, we are facing the mold problem head on. We are looking at it. We realize we have a problem and we are going to tackle it. We are going to put the money that needs to be done to make sure these problems are fixed for the health and safety of our children. That is the uppermost and most important thing in the whole educational system. For example, I cannot see how they can stand up and criticize us over here about what we have not done. We have been very, very proactive.

They talk about teaching units. Madam Chair, they laid off over 1,200 teachers in their time. Last year we kept 151 teaching positions in the system; 151 positions kept in the system. Not only that, we have put together a committee to review the pupil-teacher ratio. We are expecting to hear back from that committee relatively shortly because they have finished their consultations, they are doing up the report and that will go to the minister, then on to Cabinet for consideration. That is what we have done. That is what being proactive means.

Madam Chair, we talk about the unemployment rate. At no time in our history have we had more people employed. The average for this year is 214,900 employed, the highest average in our history. This month, in November, there are 216,000 people employed, the highest in our history. In the last three years we have been second, third, and fourth in employment in Canada. That is where we have been.

Madam Chair, they also talk about out-migration. We are concerned with it, very concerned with it, because we would like to stop it. We are trying to put high-tech skills into trade schools, into the high schools. We are doing skilled trades' task force, done by my hon. colleague from St. John's North, and that report is going to come forward. We are taking a proactive approach.

Madam Chair, when they were in government they had an average of 5,800 per year leaving the Province, and they have the nerve to talk about what has happened out at a hotel when 9,000 people were in line looking for a job in Alberta? We are concerned about it too, but they cannot be throwing things over at us if, in their term, the average was much, much higher than what it is today.

What have we done? Two-point-nine million dollars for renovations at James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander; two MRI machines, over $6 million I would assume for those, one at the Janeway and one in Corner Brook; $6 million for a subsidy for personal care homes; $30 million dollars for long-term care facilities in Corner Brook, Happy Valley and Clarenville; $1.5 million for new health care in Labrador West; $2.4 million for a cancer care clinic; $16.5 million for a primary clinic in Grand Bank; $1.1 million for a new fifteen-bed treatment centre in Corner Brook; $6.5 million for an addiction -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. DENINE: Just a few more minutes to wrap up, please?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have a few moments to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, to say that we have not done anything is not telling exactly how the picture is. We have worked very hard in three years. If they had to do in thirteen years what we have done in three years we would be much further ahead today, much better off, but no, Madam Chair. In three years we took the proactive approach and we put our money where our mouth is. We took an active role to improve the environment and society and do a good job on poverty reduction.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a few comments. I am going to get out of order now a little bit because I was supposed to go to the Member for Mount Pearl and then to the ferries with the Member for Topsail.

I have to make a few comments first about the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader and the Member for Ferryland, who in 2003, when he was the Opposition House Leader and Finance critic, put out a press release. He said he was appalled that the Liberals voted down a resolution to extend the home heating fuel rebate to electricity users. When he walked into the House here tonight, I looked at him and said: Minister - I called him by his first name, I cannot say it here in the House because it is against the law - how come you are not living up to that resolution? He looked at me and said: The price of electricity has not gone up in the last three years. That is what he said. The price of electricity has not gone up in the last three years.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay, in proportion to all.

Let me tell the minister, in case he didn't know, electricity has gone up 15 per cent in the last three years. In fact, it went up 5 per cent in July - didn't it? - and 10 per cent last July. Okay. So, it has gone up 15 per cent and he does not think that electricity or electricity users are spending enough to warrant a rebate. When he stood here earlier tonight and asked us to approve a bill that - he asked the taxpayers of this Province to pay $10 million for electricity that the mill in Stephenville is not going to use. Because the mill in Stephenville closed down, we are on the hook, as the taxpayers of the Province, for $10 million a year in perpetuity. Here he is now, saying - and he turns his back to me because I know I have him embarrassed.

Thanks to the Leader of the NDP, because she is the one who dug out his press release. I compliment her on her research and I compliment her as well on having a good memory, which I think I have myself, because, as the previous leader of our party used to say: Words are important.

I say to the minister, they are equally important to him because he has to swallow them tonight. He has to swallow the remarks he made when he lambasted us when we sat on this side of the floor because we would not give a rebate for electricity.

Listen, Madam Chair, they all forget the difference between then and now when it comes to the position that the government is in. I see the Member for Mount Pearl nodding his head. They forget. There was no one over here who walked off the escalator at the airport, in front of all his fans, and yelled out, with the fingers up in the air: I got it!

AN HON. MEMBER: We got it.

MR. REID: I got it.

He was talking about a $2 billion cheque that he got from Paul Martin, a $2 billion cheque, and this Province today is better off financially than we have been since Confederation. So well off that we just paid -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: They applaud each other. Yet, we have the highest usage of food banks in the country. They applaud each other because the Minister of Finance says that he cannot afford to give electricity -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - they cannot afford to give breaks to senior citizens or anyone else, or poor families in this Province who are burning electricity.

MADAM CHAIR: The Chair is having difficulty hearing the speaker. I ask hon. members to please keep the noise down.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the protection against the Member for Mount Pearl. I will get to him later with the fallacies that he perpetrated on the people of the Province when he did his speech tonight.

I ask the Minister of Finance, if he is prepared tonight to ask us to vote, I will make a deal with him. I will vote for paying the $10 million that he is asking us to vote for, because the mill closed in Stephenville and because they are not using electricity. He is asking us to vote for a electricity bill that has not been used, $10 million worth. He is asking us to pay $10 million for no electricity. It has not been burned; yet, we have to pay $10 million. I will vote for that if you stand tonight and announce a rebate for electrical users in the Province of $300, $400 or $500. I will do that, I say to the minister. I will vote for it. You are out there paying $10 million for electricity for nothing.

You pulled the biggest con in the history of the Province when you went over to Stephenville and said that we are going to give you $10 million a year for the next fifteen years, because you knew at the time that if the mill was not open you were going to have to pay the $10 million for the next fifteen years. You knew that. That is the reason you and the Premier were so flippant in offering it.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) one time.

MR. REID: We will discuss that later, I say to the Minister of Finance, about the one time. One time each year for fifteen or twenty years, that is what I say to the minister. That is what we are going to pay.

Now, we can pay $150 million in the next fifteen years for not burning electricity in the mill that you closed in Stephenville because you did nothing to keep it open, only what you would have to pay yourself if it was not open.

Why didn't you do what the people in Nova Scotia did? Why didn't you do what the Government of Nova Scotia did? They went out and actively sought, looked for and solicited, a company to come in and reactivate a defunct mill in Cape Breton, a paper mill. When they came back here and said there is no one in the world who wants to buy the mill in Stephenville, no one in the world who wants to buy that class act that they have in Stephenville, that mill, a perfect mill, no one in the world wants to buy it, at the same time that they are supposed to be out looking for an operator, guess what? They could not find one. What happens? The Government of Nova Scotia finds someone to go in and operate a paper mill in Cape Breton Island. They gave them a few subsidies and they got them in there, along with the regional councils in the area. You could not do that. Instead, you would rather take $10 million from the taxpayers of the Province to pay for electricity that is not going to be burned.

Can you imagine, $10 million a year for electricity that is not going to be burned, and you will not give the poor senior citizens and the poor in this Province a rebate on electricity because you said the price has not gone up. Well, the price has gone up, Madam Chair. It has gone up by at least 15 per cent over the last three years - under your reign, I might add, the man who called for a subsidy on electricity three years ago. Since you became the Finance Minister, electricity has gone up 15 per cent and what are you saying now? Humbug! You're not getting a rebate. Humbug, I say!

If you had it your way, I suppose you would be saying: You want a half day off for Christmas - just like the other fellow in A Christmas Carol.

All I can say is, you have a very selective memory - a very selective memory. You have $2 billion that you have gone out and spent. You have millions coming in that we did not have a few years ago when we were in government - millions, hundreds of millions a year coming in - and who is benefitting from it? Go ask your constituents in rural areas of this Province what benefit they have seen from the Atlantic Accord - the deal that I got, he says. I will tell you some people who are benefitting from it. His buddies, his corporate buddies, are benefitting from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like who?

MR. REID: Like Persona, giving them $15 million. Some of his buddies out in Bull Arm who got contracts by breaking every rule in the book got money out of it, untendered contracts.

MR. JOYCE: The ad campaign.

MR. REID: The ad campaign, $1.2 million spent on that, $20,000 on a plywood sign out in front of the door.

MR. JOYCE: How about the feel good one?

MR. REID: Let's talk about the feel good ads. The Premier came home and walked down the escalator: We got it! - to the applause of the fan club over there. Guess what he had to do then, I say to the Leader of the NDP? He had to go and spend $300,000 on a feel good campaign, to make us feel good because he got the $2 billion.

MR. PARSONS: Tendered?

MR. REID: Guess what? Three hundred thousand dollars, never went to tender.

MR. PARSONS: A little breach, he said.

MR. REID: A little breach. He even admitted it in the paper, it was only a little breach of the Public Tender Act.

Here: Premier defends ad contract, M5 contracting - his buddies, his corporate buddies, his political buddies. Guess who was the vice-president of the company that he gave the ad contract to and only had a little breach of the Public Tender Act, and do you know what the little breach was? He did not public tender it. Guess who was the vice-president of the company that got this $300,000 contract without going through a public tender, without going through an RFP. Guess who it was. A Mr. Tucker who lives here in this city. Guess who Mr. Tucker was in 2003? Guess who he was? Do you know, I say to the Speaker? Do you know who he was? He was the co-chair of the Tory provincial campaign. That is who he was, the co-chair of the provincial Tory election campaign in 2003 - a little breach.

Guess what, though? Not only did he give him the $300,000, but guess where else Mr. Tucker is? My colleague here talks about the trough out in Bull Arm. Well, there is a bigger trough than that, a much bigger one -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and that is the one we have our eyes on. He is now on the board of directors at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Fifteen seconds, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the speaker have leave?

MR. REID: The Tory campaign manager in the last election, provincial Tory campaign manager, was given a $300,000 unsolicited, untendered contract for a feel good ad. Now he is over on the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, along with his good friend Mr. MacDonald, who is the Chair of the Board of Newfoundland Hydro, and she is filled with Tory friends over there. God help the people of this Province if we ever do a deal on the Lower Churchill!

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Are you ready? Okay, we are ready.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, the sum of $11,152,900.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, the sum of $11,152,900."

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report that Bill 62 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 62 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, 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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, the sum of $11,152,900.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, the sum of $11,152,900.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Supplementary Supply bill, Bill 62, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No 2. (Bill 62)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007, And For Other Expenses Relating To The Public Service No. 2," carried. (Bill 62)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62 be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 62 be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 62)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 62 be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 62)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2, be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 62)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 62 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 62)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until Monday, December 11, at 1:30 of the clock..

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

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

Motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, December 11, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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