The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to a native of Bay Roberts whose business legacy will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chester Dawe, the founder of one of Atlantic Canada's biggest building supply store chains, passed away yesterday at the age of ninety-eight.

Mr. Dawe was born and educated in Bay Roberts, the youngest son of Captain William and Eliza Dawe, and later attended Bishop Field College and Butler's Business School before joining the family firm, William Dawe and Sons Limited.

In 1945, he established Chester Dawe Limited, which grew from an office on Topsail Road to locations in St. John's, Gander, Fortune and Clarke's Beach. The company has played a major role in housing development and construction of commercial and institutional buildings around this Province.

One of the oldest members of the Church Lads Brigade and a member of the Province's business Hall of Fame, Mr. Dawe was also known as a champion of low-cost housing and long-term financing to rural Newfoundland, convincing the provincial government of the day to allow CHMC to introduce such an initiative.

Mr. Dawe is now resting at Carnell's Funeral Home. He was predeceased by his wife of sixty-nine years, Phyllis Carson, in 1999.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I send my sincere condolences to his daughters, Janet Gardiner, Sonia Dawe Ryan, and his family and friends on the death of one of the Province's most outstanding entrepreneurs. He will be surely missed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to stand today to pay tribute to the RNC officers' band, Siochana, who will be presented with an award of excellence by the RNC Association on December 21. This award is presented to an individual or group when nominated by their peers for outstanding work in the community.

Siochana, a Gaelic name meaning peace, was taken from the name of the police force in Ireland, Garda Siochana.

Shortly after the band, Siochana, was formed in 1999, they released a compilation CD which had various groups from across the Province. This CD, done strictly on a voluntary basis, raised approximately $12,000 for the Canadian Cancer Society.

In October of this year, there was a second CD, Cops for Kids. All the money raised will go to four charities involving children, namely: Sunshine Dreams for Kids, Walk for Dreams, Candlelighters, Camp Delight, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters.

As an aside, not related to the band or the officers, Dave Hoddinott, a local artist, donated his time and effort to paint the CD cover, Good Puppy, and proceeds from that print will also go to charities.

As well as the CD, from which the entire proceeds go the Cops for Kids charities, the band is constantly on the move playing at the various seniors' homes and at the Janeway as well as for charity fundraisers. Once again, all on a volunteer basis.

I ask the Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating the members of Siochana, RNC officers Charlie Shallow, Bruce Mesh, Wayne James, Steve Knight, Jim Carroll and Darrin Feehan, on receiving this award for their service to the community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to the attention of all members the work being done by the Battle Harbour Literacy Council in promoting literacy activities in the communities of Lodge Bay, St. Lewis and Mary's Harbour.

Recently, two very successful events were held on the South Coast of Labrador. There was Walk and Stroll for Literacy event which raised more than $1,500 to support reading circles in the three communities. Also, the council, in conjunction with the Circle of Friends Family Resource Centre, held a Reading Tent during the Joining the Generations celebrations at Lodge Bay. Parents, children and grandparents took part to promote literacy and reading activities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me as I congratulate the members of this literacy council, and commend them on their efforts to promote literacy in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House and congratulate Haylie Vokey on winning a local competition in the Lions International Peace Poster Contest.

Haylie is a Grade 7 student at Bishop White All-Grade School in Port Rexton. Haylie is a very motivated student, maintaining a high academic grade average as well as being very well known among her peers as well as her teachers for her artistic abilities. Her win was followed just this past weekend, Mr. Speaker, with another win of first place for the best decorated car in the local Santa Claus parade.

The area Lions Clubs, both Fort Point and Robin Hood, sponsored the international competition which was open to all students between eleven and thirteen years of age. The theme of the competition was, Dream of Peace. Haylie's design incorporated all religions and races with one common dream, that of world peace and harmony. Her poster is now entered into the next level of competition, the district level. There are three more levels after that, culminating in one overall international winner.

I would ask all hon. members of this House to join with me today in congratulating Haylie on her win, and in wishing her well in the next level of competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Ted Russell, also known as Uncle Mose, wrote and told the story on The Chronicles of Uncle Mose, a series which began as a regular feature of CBC Radio in late 1953 and, in particular, as part of The Fisherman's Broadcast.

Ted Russell was born in Coley's Point in 1904 and began teaching at the age of sixteen. His first teaching assignment was a one-room, all-grade school at Pass Island in Fortune Bay, followed by years in Harbour Breton, Millertown, Channel, Fogo, and St. John's. In 1935, he was appointed magistrate under the Commission of Government and served in Springdale, Harbour Breton and Woody Point. In 1943, his family moved to St. John's where Russell had accepted the position of director of co-operatives, a post which he held until 1949 when he was invited to run for the Liberals in Bonavista South, an election which he won, and served in the first provincial Cabinet as Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, recently a new CD has been released, called, Tales from Pigeon Inlet, containing classic stories from the original radio broadcasts. It also includes a sixteen-page booklet with photos, biography and liner notes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. members of this House to join with me as I give recognition to the writer of these classic stories that have become part of our heritage, and also to commend the people who are working to preserve these original broadcasts and bring these new CDs forward, especially at this time of the year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of changes to the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. The MMSB was formed in 1996 to manage various waste management programs on behalf of government. Currently, they are managing the following waste management programs:

Beverage Container Program; Used Tire Program; Household Hazardous Waste Program; Waste Management Trust Fund; education and support for the recently announced Used Oil Recycling Program.

The MMSB will also call for an Expression of Interest, in the next week or so, for paper and cardboard recycling in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, in April of 2002, government announced a Provincial Waste Management Strategy. We are currently reviewing what enhanced role the Stewardship Board can play in its implementation. The strategy will require the co-operation of many agencies, one of the key ones being the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. In recognition of this key role, provisions have been made to have the president of the NLFM sit on the Board of Directors of the Stewardship Board. This will be very important as further waste management initiatives are developed.

In addition, we are reducing the number of government representatives on the Stewardship Board from three to one. Mr. Speaker, I am also announcing the appointment of Ms Leslie Grattan as Chief Operating Officer of the Stewardship Board. Ms Grattan will work with the Board of Directors to review and assess the board's future mandate and role as government implements its provincial waster management strategy.

I am confident that with Ms Grattan's recent experience developing the Provincial Waste Management Strategy and assisting with the Avalon Waste Management Plan, that she has the necessary expertise to complete this important assignment.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the Stewardship Board as we enter into a new era of waste management in this Province.

I also wish to table the Annual Report of the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board for the period ending March 31, 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we look forward on this side to the Annual Report of the MMSB. I am sure there will be lots of questions on that again this year.

On the appointments, I would like to congratulate the two individuals who are appointed, Leslie Grattan as Chief Operating Officer of the MMSB, and Dave Denine, who I might add is an excellent choice to play a role as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The statement of the minister is a very positive step forward for the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, and the presence of the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, Mr. Randy Simms, will be an important addition to the board. I hope that they will be working hard to bring us up to speed in terms of recycling throughout this Province as we have seen in other Provinces.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you. Any help is always appreciated, especially when you are on television, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. Is there anything else I need to adjust?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to update hon. members on the results of this year's Onshore Request for Bids for the issuance of petroleum exploration permits in the onshore area of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Department of Mines and Energy announced this Request for Bids for thirteen parcels of land on September 27, with the closing date set for December 13. All bids were to be submitted in the form of work commitments and expressed in terms of the total dollar amount to be expended on a parcel of land for the five year primary term of the exploration permit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that this year's Request for Bids has been successful. Eight parcels of land covering an area in excess of 202,000 hectares were conditionally selected. These bids amount to just over $3.3 million in work commitments over the next five years. Successful bidders are now required to submit a security deposit for 20 per cent of their work commitment within twenty-one days. Upon receipt of the security deposit, exploration permits will be issued.

Mr. Speaker, after reviewing the successful bidders, it is very encouraging to see some familiar names and some new participants. It is a healthy mix of established players in our onshore industry and relative newcomers who have an obvious interest in our onshore petroleum sector.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to congratulate each of the successful bidders. Parcels #3, 5 and 13 were awarded to Contact Exploration Incorporated. Parcel #4 was awarded to the joint venture involving Deer Lake Oil and Gas Incorporated, East Resources Incorporated, Ammonite Corporation, and 554568 Alberta Limited. Parcels #7 and 9 were awarded to Deer Lake Oil and Gas Incorporated. Parcels #11 and 12 were awarded to Vulcan Minerals Incorporated. I wish to thank all parties for their interest and efforts during this process.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first Onshore Request for Bids since 1996. I am very pleased to see continued growth in this industry, and I look forward to issuing exploration permits in the New Year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the news as just read by the Minister of Mines and Energy. This is, I think, important news. When we look, Mr. Speaker, at the map that was attached to this particular Ministerial Statement, we can see clearly the regions of the Province that, hopefully, will benefit from onshore activity. They are, indeed, parts of the Northern Peninsula, in particularly the St. Barbe District, the Port au Port Peninsula and other parts of the West Coast. Of course, these are areas of the Province, in particular, that have suffered from relatively significant out-migration and unemployment.

On this side of the House, Mr. Minister, we are certainly encouraged by this news, we certainly wish all the participants well, and we certainly look forward to the continuing support by this government in this ongoing onshore activity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

The minister's statement is certainly welcome news, in that we are seeing the gradual maturing of our onshore exploration industry. We hope that these individuals and companies, who are interested in investing in this type of exploration, will have success, Mr. Speaker, and encourage others to continue to explore. It takes an awful lot of exploration to find oil and wells and we look forward to these people having success with their exploration.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this government's blatant mismanagement of our fiscal resources, a lot of services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: Hon. members opposite may laugh but this is a very serious matter.

- a lot of services in this Province have been scaled back. The union that represents the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary says the force is understaffed and overworked, and is, in fact, in a crisis situation. Mr. Speaker, inadequate staffing levels are a major concern for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In Corner Brook, which comprises my District of Humber West, the police force has decreased by 20 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain how he expects the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to maintain a stable level of police coverage and ensure public safety and security, when according to the RNCA the force has seventy-seven fewer police officers today than they did in 1986?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question: I have, as Minister of Justice, and being responsible for the RNCA, had discussions with the RNCA on several occasions, not only recently, but over the past three years. Resourcing is, indeed, an issue and having more resources, not only for additional police officers but also for additional equipment, is, we feel in the Department of Justice, a priority. I have discussed it with President Boland, who is the new President of the RNCA. In fact, he advised me that he would be doing a public consultation process which they are in the course of doing now, just recently having met in Lab West and in Corner Brook, and I understand they are holding meetings in St. John's.

As I indicated to the media, as well as to Constable Boland, it is a priority of this department to, hopefully, secure more funding. Of course, policing resources and what we have available to give to the RNC falls into the range of government priorities. What are the other priorities? There are only so many resources to go around and we have to decide where we can best use the resources that we have, whether it be health care, education or police resourcing. Their concerns have not fallen on deaf ears. They have an audience as required. They know exactly where we stand and the RNC knows that this Administration has gone to bat for them more than once, and we are still in their corner and, hopefully, we can secure the necessary resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how big a priority it is for the minister. He has been discussing this matter with the police for the last three years and the RNC's budget has shrunk by over 10 per cent in the last ten years. It appears that their priorities are not health care and education, but ad campaigns seem to be a big priority for the government.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain how the force is supposed to hire new constables and maintain policing levels with an ever expanding caseload, when their budgets have been reduced by 10 per cent over the last ten years, and while the number of calls that they receive is increasing by 10 per cent annually?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification: The only discussions between this minister and the RNCA in the last three years have not only and exclusively concerned the issue of resourcing. I would like that to be quite clear. In fact, the number one issue put to this minister three years ago by the RNCA was not the resourcing issue but the issue of binding arbitration which this administration, I am pleased to say, did -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: - indeed achieve last year, in 2001, and the process was used for the first time and concluded this past June and July.

The second issue on the RNCA agenda was the issue of a workers' compensation concern they had. That one is still being worked on. The third issue of priority was their resourcing issue. We addressed it partially last budget, when we provided $600,000 for further equipment, because the vehicles were in a serious state of disrepair, and the issue of manpower is now coming to the forefront as their new need and their highest priority.

There is a balance here. You can only have the resources to put into policing or anything else in this Province if you have the resources.

MR. J. BYRNE: If you weren't wasting it on ad campaigns, you would have it.

MR. PARSONS: If the Member for Cape St. Francis wants to shout across the House and disrupt me, that is fine, but he ought to have the courtesy to listen, instead of being disruptive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: It was a very good question and, hopefully, I will provide the information required.

Unlike the members opposite we do not want to have developments-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: - so we can get resources. We have to try to make use of what we have but at the same time pursue developments so we can get more resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are many, many issues for the police. We do have a force that is in crisis and we have a force whose morale is at an all time low. Most police officers are expected to work an inordinate amount of overtime in order to address a chronic shortage of constables. Sick time has increased significantly as a result of on the job stress. What is more, in order to spend time with their families some officers are actually forced to call in sick to get some time home.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why government has not reacted to this policing crisis? When can we expect to see an increase in RNC staffing levels?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, let no one in this Province, and certainly the Leader of the Opposition, think for a moment that the safety of our citizens is not foremost in everybody's minds, because it is. There is also a factor here - you talk about the additional calls that have come to the RNCA for their services over the past number of years. There are other matters that the public might not be aware of that have lead to increased use of officer time that we did not have in the past. For example, criminal trials have become much more complex, which require much more time with these officers being tied up on court time. It is not simply a case of not having enough bodies. It is: How do you handle these complexities with the manpower that you do have?

We also had issues with overtime and sick time usage and whether it was being properly utilized. That is a matter that Chief Deering has been working on for the past twelve months intently with the RNCA. Hopefully, we are going to see some easing of pressures in that regard, so that we do not see any misuse in any regard by overtime and sick leave. They allege and suggest - and we are not contesting it - that the reason they use sick time is because they have a shortage of manpower. Obviously, there are very legitimate explanations on their side as well. We are trying to work our way through that.

The bottom line is: We have met with everybody in this Province who has a concern with policing, whether it be RNCA users or RCMP users. We will do our utmost -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: - to see that the resources are available to provide the manpower and equipment that is needed to give the people of this Province the safety and security that they need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for having just acknowledged that the workload and the caseload is, in fact, increasing, and they are, in fact, spending more time in court, in that this government, this minister and this Premier expects them to do more work with less money because they, in fact, reduced that budget by 10 per cent over the last ten years.

The question of safety for the public is paramount. Safety of the officers is also important. Police officers tell me, Mr. Speaker, that there are some vehicles that have racked up more than 250,000 kilometers in the line of duty, and that it is their opinion that these vehicles are no longer safe to drive on our highways.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier confirm, or agree, that safe vehicles are paramount to a police officer's ability to perform his or her duties and that some of these vehicles should not even be on our highways in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, that in terms of dealing with the RNCA or any collective bargaining group in this Province, this administration has shown itself to be more than fair, more than accessible to anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Whether it be teachers, doctors, you name it, in this Province, this administration has dealt with them fairly and we intend to and will do the same thing with the RNCA.

Regarding the equipment, as I alluded to earlier in my answer, $600,000 was given by this administration to the RNCA, specifically, in the Budget of 2001-2002 for the purchase of new vehicles, and it was used for that purpose. The fact that a vehicle may have 200,000 or 250,000 kilometres does not mean it is not safe to be on the highway. We prefer to have brand new vehicles all the time, if you could afford that, but there is no vehicle used by the RNCA in the performance of their duties that has not been certified for proper use by the mechanics of Works, Services and Transportation.

So, to suggest that they are in vehicles that are unsafe on the highways or operating contrary to law is just absolutely incorrect. They may have older vehicles that have mileage that we would prefer was less, but they are certainly not using illegal vehicles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister to check with the police officers. That is where that information is coming from. They feel they are in unsafe vehicles, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Northeast Avalon only had four cruisers on the road because the force couldn't afford to buy new snow tires for their other vehicles. In fact, our police force's new prisoner transportation vehicle was also taken off the road for a period of three weeks because it didn't have snow tires.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier feel it is acceptable to jeopardize public safety and security because it only has snow tires for four vehicles in the Province's most heavily populated area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again the vehicles are provided via the Department of Justice budget, but the Works Services Department of government maintains these vehicles. Now, there are more than just RNC vehicles that are repaired. They go in and, again, what the workload is in the Works Services and Transportation depots, as far as repairs to these vehicles, I would assume that the RNCA - it is my understanding police vehicles are done on a priority basis, along with snow removal equipment, because that is where the urgent needs are, particularly this time of year.

I would like to say one thing, as well: The Leader of the Opposition referred to, in the most populated area in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we do not differentiate in Justice. We do not care if you live in Burnt Islands, Newfoundland, or if you live in St. John's; you are all entitled to a level of security and safety by the police forces of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon, the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a very straightforward question for the minister: Would the minister confirm that at times there are eighteen to twenty police officers in headquarters because there are no cars available for them to go out in?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of one incident where certain vehicles utilized by the RNCA did not get repaired in a timely fashion due to the backlog at Works, Services and Transportation, and that a few officers had to do other duties on that particular occasion, but that was brought to attention by the Department of Justice staff, with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and we stressed to him, on behalf of the RNCA, our need and our desire to have the vehicles ready for use by those officers.

Again, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation makes the definitive decision as to what vehicles get repaired, when, but we have certainly made our concerns known that there should not be any delay between officers not being able to perform their duties because vehicles are being repaired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that, just this month, a woman had locked herself in her bathroom to try and prevent a violent domestic attack and the only police vehicle available to respond to her plea for help had to drive from Mount Pearl to Outer Cove? Would you not agree that this seriously jeopardizes public safety?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, that particular incident referred to by the Leader of the Opposition certainly has not been brought to my attention by anyone in my department. If the Leader of the Opposition has a particular circumstance at any time where he feels there has been some letdown in what the appropriate level of service is, he or anyone else in the Province, in fact, are invited to bring that to our attention, if they feel something improper was done.

I would like to say here as well, albeit the Leader of the Opposition today is no doubt a spokesperson for the RNCA, let there be no mistake about where this Administration stands. We are not an RNC management support only. We give our wholehearted support to the efforts of the RNCA and every member of that association. They do the best they can do in the circumstance they have, with the resources they have, and I commend them for the admirable job that they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

In view of the inadequate consideration for privacy and confidentiality of health information, will the minister now do the right thing and withdraw Bill 24 until an appropriate legislative framework is ready for this House to consider as it relates to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. I had arranged, in response to discussion in the House the other day in terms of the bill that is before the House, a bill that was being brought forward at the request of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information - a body that which we set up some years ago to deal with the collection and dissemination of information related to health in this Province. In terms of the legislation that is before the House, I am disappointed to hear that the discussions today did not arrive at a resolution, because my understanding is that there were representatives there from the department and from the centre itself. The information that I have been provided, and again since the matter was raised before the House, is that quite frankly the issues that have been raised are unfounded in terms of the controls that are there, the assurances with regard to the proper protocols and the proper security with regard to any information that would be collective and disseminated. Certainly my preference would be, because the legislation that is before the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: - as the hon. member would have been advised, I am sure, in the briefing today, would have been in advance of another piece which we are hoping to do it the future, and that is to provide for incorporation of the group, which will position them to be able to take advantage of monies that are out there right now that they are not able to access because of the nature of the fact that they do not operate on a stand-alone basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the minister's non-answer that he is going to proceed with the bill. Let me ask the minister this: If NLCHI, the Centre for Health Information, operated as an arm of the St. John's Health Care Corporation for the past several years, as it has, why is it necessary to pass Bill 24 now without first passing a legislative framework for NLCHI?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing I can say in response to that is, the advice that has been given to this minister, again, and it is legal advice that has been provided to me, is that this is the appropriate way to proceed, that quite frankly the preference would be that what we are doing here would be in fact enshrined in legislation. So it is on the basis of legal advice that has been provided to the department and to the minister that we are proceeding as we are, but obviously the hon. member has a difference of opinion and I respect that. Again, I say to him that in fact this is the legal advice that has been provided to the department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that his department is actually planning to incorporate NLCHI under the companies act and does not have any plan to bring a legislative framework before this Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will confirm to this point in time that has been the plan of the department, and there is nothing coercive about that. Quite frankly, my understanding from the discussions today is that there was some consideration and some debate given that maybe a preference would be to go a different route. The minister and the department is certainly open to that in terms of - I understand the concerns that were put forward.

I do have to say to the hon. member, unfortunately, that I did not get an opportunity to get debriefed in detail on the meetings. My prior commitments kept me from spending any amount of time with the officials, but I do understand that there was some concern that maybe there is a preference in terms of the route that we proceed. I am certainly open to that. Again, the direction that I have been given and the advice that I have been given is that, in terms of what we have before us right now, there is really no reason for that not to proceed and we can have the discussion - certainly we can do that today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH:- in terms of dealing with that matter before the House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the Avalon Waste Management Action Plan, "The Committee cannot usefully suggest a detailed phase-out plan for the 43 existing disposal sites in the area until the Province has determined the standards and process for site close-out and remediation."

I ask the minister: When will these standards and the process for site close-out and remediation be put in place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

The waste management program that we have put in place, as a government, and the policy is really the most significant environmental policy since Confederation, but we are going to be cleaning up the waste disposal sites in the Province. On the Avalon, the regulations and the criteria will be finalized, hopefully, before Christmas; if not, very early in the new year. Our Avalon Waste Management Committee has been appointed. I think the interim committee is now appointed by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and we are looking forward to getting on with the job in the new year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, according to recommendation 48 on page 42 of the action plan, "With respect to the Cuslett and New Harbour Barrens waste disposal sites, because of significant environmental concerns..., Government immediately close out these sites and designate alternate arrangements for the communities using these sites." The recommendation called for the immediate close-out of the sites, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister: When will government comply with this recommendation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the members of the Avalon Waste Management Committee. They did a tremendous job on this report and we very much appreciate the effort they have made. On both those issues, we are working now and we have been working for the last few weeks to identify alternative sites. As a matter of fact, the New Harbour site has been evaluated. We have funded the evaluation as to any environmental impact. We are looking for alternative sites at this point, and very shortly we are hoping to have a solution to that problem. We are also hoping to have a longer-term solution, and that is the plan for the Avalon Waste Management in this region. That plan has been announced and we are working diligently on a solution to our environmental waste management situation on the Avalon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Mr. Speaker, 30 per cent of residential waste in the Province is paper. Fifty per cent on the Avalon Peninsula of industrial waste is paper. I ask the minister: Based on recommendations 18 and 49, that a disposal ban on corrugated cardboard and paper materials be implement, which is something this party has been asking for, for years, and it is something now that the Avalon Waste Management Committee is asking for, when will this ban be implemented?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it might be suggested by the Opposition critic, but over here we are the government and we act on these issues, and we are acting on that issue as a matter of fact.

As a matter of fact, he will read in the paper next week the call for a Province-wide ban on wastepaper and cardboard. That is going to be brought forward within the next week or so. Also, before you call the ban, you have to know that you are going to have equipment in place around the Province to take care of the problem. That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and we have been diligently working on a solution to that problem as we have been on a whole range of other solutions to waste management.

Unlike the critic who always talks about the problem, we talk about the solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about providing communications on the Trans-Labrador Highway. Frankly, people in Labrador were outraged at the minister's response, that he was going to provide two Fringe 45 radios for 600 kilometres of road; radios, I might add, that 99 per cent of the population do not know how to use, which leads us to believe that, on the issue of communications, the minister himself is on the fringe because he is definitely not in the high-tech loop.

I want to ask the minister: When will he provide satellite phones? Because we have done some work on this and a satellite phone, including the pole, the solar panel, the sign, the case for the phone, the phone itself, the satellite unit and antenna, would cost $3,975 each for a total of $49,000 to provide great coverage for emergencies along the Trans-Labrador Highway, that could cut the response time for emergency people in half.

I ask the minister: When will he be announcing, given the cost, that these emergency satellite phones will be installed on the Trans-Labrador Highway?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the issue of communication on the Trans-Labrador Highway has been around for awhile and I guess what I have done is accepted the advice from the experts in terms of the communications, the engineers within the department, and that is the system we went with.

To update the people, I am arranging a meeting, actually, with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I am concerned about the communications on the Trans-Labrador Highway. No matter what you do in terms of satellite phones or whatever system you use, you are going to have great distances when there is no communication. I am arranging a meeting now with Aliant Telecom. I am meeting with the President of Aliant Telecom, and one of the issues we have on the agenda is looking at the whole issue of cellular phone coverage in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one of the issues that we will be addressing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That sounds like a stall tactic to me, I say to the minister. This technology I am talking about with the solar panels can be installed immediately. It is available for $49,000. That would put communications, at the furthest point from each other, at twenty kilometres, a great system that could be put in place. By the way, I say to the minister, $49,000 equals about thirteen days interest on the $97 million that you took from the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Again, I ask the minister to take his responsibilities seriously. Live up to the commitments made to the people in Labrador. Install these phones forty kilometres apart, at a sum of $49,000. That is the cost. I have the information. You have not done anything about that as yet, so I will provide you with the information.

What I want to know from you today, given the cost that I have just outlined -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the member to get to his question.

MR. COLLINS: - when will you start to install these phones?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I indicated to the hon. member that communication and the lack of communication on the Trans-Labrador Highway is an important issue, and I indicated that I was going to meet with one of the great companies in this country, and one of the great companies in this Province, that have been around for a long, long time. It used to be Newfoundland Telephone but now it is Aliant Canada. I am hoping that these people will look at it, and not only look at it in terms of Labrador but other areas of the Province where we are lacking in terms of cellular phones, and we will do the best thing possible for the people of Labrador in terms of communication on the Trans- Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table for your information today the 2000-2001 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Copies have been forwarded for distribution to members through the Clerk's office.

Also, I wish to note, Mr. Speaker, that the annual report for the year ending March 31, 2002, of the corporation will be tabled when the House reconvenes in the spring session.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to statutory requirement, I am pleased to present the Annual Report, 2001-2002, of The Public Service Commission, on behalf of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with Section 13 of the Auditor General Act, I hereby table the Report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate or further consideration on the resolution on Bill 7 respecting the raising of money by way of loan by the Province shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, schedule or schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to Bill 7, shall be the first business of the Committee of Supply and not shall not be further postponed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the retired teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the retired teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador, to this Legislature here assembled. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is that government will give consideration to increasing the pensions of retired teachers in this Province.

I am sure we all agree that all retirees need sufficient benefits to maintain a decent standard of living, and that regular increases are essential. In the case of retired teachers, they have not received a pension increase since January, 1989. In that year alone, the increase of 2.5 per cent did not even offset the Consumer Price Index of 3.6 per cent. From 1990 to 2002, the CPI has increased by 29.5 per cent. This amount alone deducted from the pensions of 11 per cent of retired teachers who are living below the poverty line is intolerable.

Many of these teachers devoted a lifetime to their profession in educating the children of this Province. These teachers, back when salaries were low and conditions far from ideal, were performing the very same important service as our teachers of today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to give serious consideration to this petition and take immediate positive action on behalf of the retired teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am please today to rise and present a petition on behalf of some 1,118 residents of the District of Port au Port. The prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Port au Port, humbly sweareth;

WHEREAS with the redistribution of seats in 1996, the former District of Stephenville disappeared; and

WHEREAS the residents of the former District of Stephenville were redistributed to the districts of St. George's and Port au Port; and

WHEREAS the name of the District of St. George's was subsequently changed to the District of St. George's - Stephenville East; and

WHEREAS the name of the District of Port au Port was not changed to reflect this new reality;

We, the undersigned residents of the District of Port au Port, do hereby petition the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to change the name of the district from Port au Port to the District of Port au Port - Stephenville West.

And as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition today. In fact, this issue arose shortly after the redistribution of seats in the last electoral boundaries review, and upon approaching your office, Mr. Speaker, in determining what process should be followed, first of all, we engaged a process whereby there was a survey done of the district to determine if, in fact, there was sufficient interest to move forward with this. Subsequent to that, I did arrange to have this petition developed and circulated, and as I see here today, there are some 1,118 people who have signed the petition. I certainly support this. I think it is reflective of the wishes of the people of the district and I have made sure to ascertain that it does, in fact, reflect their wishes. I am very pleased today to present this on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in my district. I will just read the prayer of the petition.

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not provided rate increases for Public Service Pensioners since 1989; and

WHEREAS there are many of these individuals who have been forced to retire as a result of a disability or illness at a young age; and

WHEREAS in many cases their only source of income is the Public Service Pension Plan; and

WHEREAS the effects of inflation have significantly reduced their buying power, having no salary adjustment for over thirteen years;

THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the rate of benefits payable to disabled pensioners throughout the Public Service Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, in this sitting of the House we have introduced several bills dealing with the inflationary adjustments to people in the Public Service Pension, covered by the Public Service Pension Plan, and those covered by the Teachers' Pension Plan. I think that reflects an acknowledgment that inflation does have a way of eating away at the purchasing power of people's pension benefits.

There is a particular group of pensioners out there, those who have availed of the disability provisions in the pension plan, and many of them may have found themselves disabled and unable to work at ages such as thirty or forty, and who normally would have had an opportunity to contribute to the pension plan for thirty or thirty-five years. Someone who might retire at age sixty-five, a normal retirement age, might live for another fifteen or twenty years and their pension would maintain a significant amount of purchasing power, or at least an amount of purchasing power much greater than someone who has to start receiving a permanent pension arrangement at the young age of forty or forty-five, who, by the time they, in fact, get sixty-five, their pension has very little purchasing power. If it were not for the provisions of the Old Age Security system, they would find themselves basically at a starvation level.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this petition represents the views of many people who are long-time public servants, in some cases, who have found themselves at a very young age unable to continue to contribute to the workforce because of an illness. I think these are people who have a very special requirement because of the accelerated erosion that they find in their pension plan.

I ask this House, and this government, to give consideration to these special group of people who are among, I say, Mr. Speaker - they are, in fact, and I acknowledge - they are among other retirees who have not received pension adjustments. But, some of these other retirees may have reached the age of sixty-five and had an opportunity to build a significant contribution to their plans and their income levels would be much higher than some of the people affected by this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of Bishop's Falls, Grand Falls, Trinity Bay, including Clarenville, and places of that nature, from a wide range of areas around the Province, Mr. Speaker, on the topic of drug coverage for MS drugs. I will read the preamble and the prayer.

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy Program and for people on income support; and

WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with these high cost MS drugs, using a co-payment or sliding scale program, not limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with MS;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for these high cost drugs so that people in this Province can get financial assistance, as is the case in every other Canadian province.

Mr. Speaker, I have risen in this House many, many times. I have presented petitions containing thousands and thousands of names from people practically all across this Province, calling for government to do something about the situation as it exists today, for people who suffer from MS, who do not have coverage for the high cost drugs.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous, as I have said in the past, that hard-working people of this Province have to ruin themselves financially before this government will step in and provide any kind of assistance whatsoever.

I want to point out also, Mr. Speaker, that I encourage each and every person around this Province who suffers from MS, or has family members or friends who suffer from MS, to contact their MHA and let them know that this is an issue that they want addressed in order to provide protection for the people of the Province who do not have any way of paying for these drugs, other than by cashing their RRSPs, by spending any income they may have so that it reduces them to income support levels, or by cashing and spending any money they may have put aside in their children's education fund before this government will help out.

As I have repeated on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, this government takes the position that they cannot afford to cover these types of drugs. Well, I want to make it very clear to the people of the Province and to this government, that is not the case at all; because this government, by its own admission, will step in and help individuals with the purchase of these drugs once the persons themselves reduce them and their families to financial ruin. Then this government will step in. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. People in this Province should be entitled to the same benefits that people in every other province in this country can look forward to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair that people in this Province have the same rights, and enjoy the same support levels for their purchase of these drugs as every other Canadian citizen enjoys. It is time that this government took this issue seriously and did something about it, and I would urge them to do it sooner rather than later because people in this Province have been suffering long enough.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present yet another petition from residents in my area who are complaining about the deplorable road conditions. This particular petition, I will read the petition first, Mr. Speaker.

We, the undersigned residents of Nipper's Harbour of the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads. The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make travelling to and from school unsafe for our children as well as jeopardize the safety fo the travelling public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and portray a lack of commitment to rural areas of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to present these petitions on behalf of people throughout my district and around the Province, who year after year still complain that after all these years of being a Province of Canada, that we still have gravel roads in our districts and throughout the Province. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are still over 900 kilometres of gravel road throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the year 2002. Still, at the same time, there are some 1,500 to 1,600 kilometres of old pavement that has to be changed, that is twenty-five to thirty years old. The problem still exists, Mr. Speaker, and it is still growing.

In this particular instance, the community of Nipper's Harbour has been and is contributing to the economy of this Province. It is flourishing, actually, as a fishing community, and has for a number of years. The letter that the mayor has written to me just a short while ago talked about their community, and how they feel they have paid their fair share, and after so many years still no pavement on a seventeen kilometre stretch of road leading to that community.

Mr. Speaker, just this past summer, just to bring it up to scratch, the fact is that the town is being reasonable - and they have been reasonable and very patient, of course in not having payment still, after all of this time - they asked for some upgrading of the road just so that it would be passable and be decent to drive over. The simple quote that comes from the people at the depots on the peninsula, who are doing the best they can with what they have, the people on the graders, on the equipment, say it is a waste of time to send a grader over there because there is nothing left to grade. They are down to bedrock. That is the reality of what is happening in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, the people in Nipper's Harbour are just asking for their fair share, not for a double-lane highway, just for a little bit. Even the upgrading that they asked for this summer, when there was only a small amount - and the minister knows - of some Class B or Class C material sent over to keep people quiet, when the fact is they could have at least sent over some decent material so the appropriate amount of material could have been put on that road so it would not be like a washboard after just two or three days of grading it.

Year after year they continue to say: Give us our fair share. At least upgrade the road, and then hopefully do some pavement. They do not expect everything overnight, but they do expect a bit. This community has contributed to the economy of this Province and they are going to continue to do so. That is the good side of the story. The bad side is that they deserve at least some upgrading on this road. I am here asking, on their behalf today, that this is given priority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the Orders of the Day, I want to make a couple of motions: one, a notice of motion for Thursday, December 18, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., and the companion motion to that, that we not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, for today, I move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 2, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill25 be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a couple of observations on Bill 25 before it passes third reading. As I understand, this act will provide for the appointment of an Information and Privacy Commissioner to conduct reviews and hear complaints under the Access to Information Act.

I was noticing in the bill, and maybe the minister can make some comment on this, that the tenure of the person who will be appointed eventually to this position, the individual will be an officer of this House. The bill provides for that, and for staff and things of that nature. I am just wondering if the minister has any comment to make as it regards to tenure? I am not quite certain if this is like this with all recent House appointments, I really cannot recall, but this appointment is for a two-year term. Now it is renewable for a further two years, so I suppose, in theory, you could call it a four-year appointment, but it seems to me that a two-year tenure for a position of this nature, for an officer of the House, is rather short. I do not know. I did not check the legislation to see what the Ombudsman is, or the Clerk, the Auditor General, some of those positions, but my memory tells me that they are significantly in excess of a two-year renewable term, and I raise that. Maybe there is a logical explanation for it, and maybe nobody has any concerns about it except myself, in which case I do not propose to carry on a filibuster and not allow the bill to pass, or anything of that nature, but my concern is that I do not know if you can attract, you know, the quality of person that you would want to carry out those reviews with a term that, at least on the surface, does not appear to have much tenure to it.

Now, I realize that the work that the person will do is review and hold hearings on requests for information and so on, but it seems to me that this is a substantive and substantial position and that the person who would choose to fill it would perhaps want some longer degree of security than a two-year renewable term.

That was the concern that came to my mind, and I would be interested in hearing the minister's view.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, in regard to that matter, the term of the review commissioner's position came about subsequent, I guess, to the principle concern of this bill, which was separating the role of the Ombudsman from the review commissioner. That was what, I guess you might say, drove this amendment that we are seeking in the first instance. They wanted to separate the Ombudsman or the Citizens' Representative from this person. The reason, of course, that is of major concern is to put us in a position that we will be able to proclaim the new act, which, until we get this straightened out, is great difficulty - proclaiming an act without even having a review commissioner in place. That is what started the discussions.

Following that decision where I had discussions myself with the Leader of the Opposition, actually, to explain the purpose of the amendment and where we wanted to go with this and why, and there was no disagreement in that regard, it became an issue then, after that initial decision, as to what the term would be. The reason two was chosen - and it became a subject of conversation in the Internal Economy Commission. There was a meeting, in fact, where I met with the IEC to explain why we were doing this and there were discussions - I believe the Member for Ferryland was also there on that particular day as a representative of the Opposition party - at which time we discussed a two-year concept versus a six- or seven-year concept. The reason being, we are not exactly sure, and the IEC will play a major role in this, as to whether we think the review commissioner need even be a full-time, five-day-a-week, eight-hour-a-day position, or maybe it might even be a position, for example, where it is just as the need arises.

For example, if you determine in year one, based upon the information that goes through and the number of files, that you only have two appeals in the run of a year, maybe you are not into a situation where you need someone on a full-time basis that you are paying substantial salaries to and really you cannot justify that. So, the consensus that day was: Let's take a two-year term rather than walk into a six-year term.

In the case of the Ombudsman, the Citizens' Representative, we pretty well knew that we were going to have a full-time occupation in order to do it, but in this case we are not sure whether it will be one appeal or 100 appeals, so we thought, rather than get ourselves into something long-term, six years, we take that approach; and the IEC, of course, will play a major role in it - in fact, will design the terms and conditions of employment depending upon what the history proves to be for the commissioner.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wish to rise for a few moments to speak to Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

As indicated in second reading of this bill, this is largely legislation that we would support on this side of the House. We have heard, of course, many frustrating accounts over the past several years, of experiences by individuals, members of the public, members of the media, members of the Opposition, who have attempted to obtain information with respect to information requests from a variety of government departments, only to be found that obviously either the responses themselves or the response time or the quality of information that was being forwarded to those who had requested the information only led to more dissatisfaction and more complaints and more questions being asked.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that the appointment of a dedicated individual, a commissioner, to deal perhaps in greater details specifically with these requests - and, as I understand it, deal with privacy issues as well - perhaps it is in keeping with the spirit of the requests generally, because we are seeking in some cases sensitive information and information that in many case is important to the public, but to have a dedicated individual specifically appointed for this particular reason seems to me to be in keeping with the overall spirit of the new legislation that has been brought forward, namely the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. Largely, on this side of the House, we do generally support the spirit of this legislation.

I would mention as well that it is interesting to note that in section 1.(n) in the definition section, there is a definition provision of the officers of the House of Assembly. When we read the definitions, they include the following: the Speaker of the House, obviously, the Clerk of the House, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Members' Interests, the Citizens' Representative or the Ombudsman, the Child and Youth Advocate, and now the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and a position to be designated to be an officer, or our positions, designated to be officers of the House.

It is interesting to note that really there is a select group of individuals, Mr. Speaker, who meet this definition, and obviously with the designation, or with the appointment, comes the responsibility to the House of Assembly, to all Members of the House of Assembly, and, in so doing, to all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We certainly view this - to use words that were used in the past - as progressive legislation in keeping with the spirit of the act that is being brought forward, and we look forward in the near future to working with the individual on behalf of the citizens of this Province to ensure that requests that are made and that information received and that privacy itself, obviously, is being respected throughout the process, but we look forward to working with this individual to ensure, in an overall sense, that the interests and the well-being of the people of this Province are being protected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, " read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 29.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26 be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to put a few final comments to this bill, with regard to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association.

As I said when the bill was first introduced, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is coming forth at the request of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, at the request of the government. It comes on the heels of some very good reforms within that association, whereby they have gone to direct democracy in electing their executive for the upcoming year. They have done great strides in the bi-annual convention that they hold now every two years instead of an annual one.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that this association is perhaps one of the oldest in this particular Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have certainly given great service to this Province. It started off, I suppose, as service to a country, now as service to this Province. They have moved the teaching profession along in very, very modern ways at different times throughout their history and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed one of those times - again, a defining moment in their history - where they have changed their approach.

Their numbers are declining but their influence is becoming greater and greater with each passing day, Mr. Speaker. Certainly this bill, we on this side of the House support it wholeheartedly and we certainly wish that this bill move forward and that the fortunes of this particular Teachers' Association will continue in the successful ways in which they have so far brought along that particular association.

The teachers of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are entrusted with the future of our most valuable resource, the children of this Province. The teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador do an absolutely fantastic job, and I look forward to the years to come when again this association will certainly distinguish themselves in the service of our young people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 22.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 6, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 30, An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30 be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to rise for a few minutes on Bill 30, An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders. It is a piece of legislation that we dealt with in some detail yesterday, Mr. Speaker, during the Committee stage, when both the minister and myself and my colleague from Lewisporte had an opportunity to raise some concerns and to raise some questions with respect to the legislation in question.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps again it is fair to say that this legislation is welcomed legislation in the sense that we are now just keeping in step with other jurisdictions in Canada, and obviously the benefit to the people of this Province is such that support orders that are granted in this Province may then be enforced in other jurisdictions. It has a reciprocal feature to it, to allow those who are entitled to support just because the person, the payor, may live outside the jurisdiction, or indeed outside this country, does not necessarily preclude that person from his or her obligation and responsibility to the support of his or her spouse or children.

So, obviously, this type of legislation is in keeping with what we find in other jurisdictions and, again, is ultimately for the benefit of those individuals who have already been found to have been worthy of the receipt of support from individuals who perhaps just, for whatever reason, have chosen to leave Newfoundland and Labrador and go elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, the issues that came up perhaps in some detail yesterday dealt with - and I will just refer to a couple of them - the issue of parentage, and we look at section 12 of the legislation. It states, "Where a child's parentage is in issue and has not previously been determined, the court may decide that issue." A point was raised - I know the minister responded to it - that the wording, in the minister's opinion, as found in section 12, was deemed to be adequate. We on this side, perhaps, raised the possibility of when this issue of parentage was being questioned, that the court ought to be, by legislation, put in a situation to deal with the issue and therefore that could have been done simply by changing the word may to shall, obviously imposing upon the court the legal requirement to deal and to determine the issue of parentage before rendering its decision on the overall issue of the support application.

The issue of appeal was also raised, Mr. Speaker, as I recall, and it was felt, indeed - and I know it was questioned by my colleague as well - that the appropriate appellate court, in some cases, ought to have been the Court of Appeal. Obviously, if a decision was before either the Trial Division of the Supreme Court or the Unified Family Court, any appeal being rendered upon a decision of those courts would obviously be the Court of Appeal. However, when matters under this act were before the Provincial Court of Newfoundland, one has to question why the appellate court is then the Court of Appeal when obviously the next court in line, Mr. Speaker, is the Trial Division of the Supreme Court. Points and concerns with respect to distance and cost in particular were raised, but it appears that the minister felt that the wording again, as found in the appeals section, was deemed to be adequate and it looks as if the particular section will go through as found, I believe, in section 37 or in section 38.

Mr. Speaker, simply to say in conclusion, I guess, the legislation is positive, it is welcomed, it will provide a real benefit to those spouses, parents and children who must rely on a reciprocal arrangement to have support orders enforced. From that point of view we will indeed be supporting the legislation, albeit with some deficiencies as we see it, but nevertheless it is important that we see legislation like this move forward so that the interests of the recipient, spouses and children of our Province can be protected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a comment. I appreciate the dialogue and the comments of the member opposite. I think the concerns that he raised were indeed legitimate concerns, but, as referenced, I felt they had been adequately addressed and we are dealing here with a uniform national model that, albeit we are not sure if there are any warts in it right now. Only over the course of time will we determine that, but it is all in the best interest.

I am pleased to see as well that they see this for what it is. It is a very positive piece of legislation that is intended to help people who have support orders and are in need of support, principally for their children. I appreciate the comments of the member opposite.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words at third reading on Bill 30, An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders. It is a very important piece of legislation that brings us into line with a national scheme to ensure that people in this Province can have access to the courts to get very important, necessary and, in fact, vital support for a spouse - and, in particular, spouse and children - in the event of a marriage breakdown, or in the event of a right to support under the Divorce Act, or under our Family Law Act. This provides an opportunity to do that.

Obviously, it is a highly technical piece of legislation in terms of how it will operate. The key importance here is access; in our view, Mr. Speaker, that people have access to the process, that they have speedy access to the process, and that there be available advice to people in terms of how to go through the process.

I hope that minister - I know the minister is likely to designate the support enforcement agency. That is one agency in Corner Brook that people have dealt with over the years in trying to get support enforcement orders, support orders enforced, and collect the actual support itself. We have not heard much concern expressed lately, but there was a time when people were having great difficulty getting through to that agency to get things going. Things seem to have improved in that score. I hope that this does not create a serious administrative burden that they are not able to handle. I hope that the minister is very cognizant of that and will ensure that sufficient staff resources are available, sufficient training for those staff resources is also available, and that, in addition to the facilities of the Support Enforcement Agency, that the court staff around the Province - whether provincial court or supreme court staff who may be on the front lines when people come looking for information - are also sufficiently aware, informed and trained as to be able to provide the kind of information that would be necessary so that people, we are mostly talking about women here, so that the women who need support for themselves and their children will have access to this process in a timely way with the kind of advice that they may need to fill out the forms. We have not seen any of the forms yet or any of the documentation that is required. Sometimes these can be complicated, and we would certainly like to see someone able to give the kind of advice that people need so that they can make use of this process, which is designed to assist them and to facilitate obtaining support orders in other provinces and territories of Canada.

We are in a much more mobile environment today than we were five years ago or ten years ago. We have people traveling, very easily, to other provinces to work. We have large numbers of people, residents of this Province who are already working in Fort McMurray or in Red Deer or in Calgary or in Ontario, British Columbia and other places. It is very easy for residents of this Province to appear in British Columbia, in Prince George, or in Fort McMurray with a job on a recommendation from a friend of theirs. So clearly, that kind of mobility speaks to the need for a system such as this, so that families who may be left behind can access the kind of support that they need to look after themselves and their children.

We certainly support this legislation, and I encourage the minister to ensure that the follow-up is in place to make sure there is proper education and training for staff resources in his department, in the courts and in the Support Enforcement Agency.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I understand this goes into force early in the new year. Although it says that it is a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, maybe the minister can address that in closing, if he can tell us when exactly this might be proclaimed. Is the system ready to go in the first part of the new year or will there be some delay while that is getting into force, what provisions he has in mind to inform the public that this provision is available, and where they might go to get support?

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the intent is, once passed, it will be proclaimed. So, it will go into force on January 1, 2003. In terms of information, all court sites will be notified, of course, that the law is now law, and the Support Enforcement Agency, of course, will be doing their PR piece to let people now about the new system as well. We expect there may be a few bumps trying to get the system worked out and get it working smoothly, but we are certainly intent, like the rest of Canada, to proceed with the matter on January 1, 2003.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 7, third reading of Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Motion, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I rise this evening to pass a few closing comments, I guess, on third reading on Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. As I said, when I spoke in second reading, Mr. Speaker - and some of my colleagues said at the time - certainly, we will be supporting this bill when the time comes. In saying that we will support it, Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair once again to make it perfectly clear to everybody why we are supporting this bill at this time, why we are supporting the amendment to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act and, I guess, as well, to point out why we have the amendments, that we discussed just a little less than two years ago, to the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act. What we are doing today is really just amending the act to allow for the amendments of the spring of 2001 to continue on for one more year.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, as all members of the House know, and I suspect everybody in the fishing industry knows, who is paying attention to what we are doing here today, what we are discussing is the Final Offer Selection process of collective bargaining in the fishing industry. Everybody would know, I expect, or they should know anyway, that the Final Offer Selection came about in the fishing industry as a result of major labour disputes in the mid-1990s,1995, 1996 and especially in 1997. Major problems within the industry and trying to arrive at a negotiated settlement for fish prices almost always involved delays in the season. As I said, 1997 in particular resulted in a major delay in the season's opening where we were up into July fishing the bulk of our crab, and certainly ran into problems on shrimp negotiations later that year as well. With a major development in the shrimp industry at that time, I think many in the industry and in government, on both sides of the House, foresaw greater problems down the road and wanted to see if there was not some better way of doing business and settling price disputes in the industry.

At the time, rightly or wrongly - I believe rightly - there was a decision made by the industry, on the recommendation of the Vardy task force, to implement Final Offer Selection as the forum, I suppose, to resolve disputes. We saw where the process involved an independent market analysis providing information to both sides of the industry on where the market was at that time of the year and where it was expected to go in the ensuing months. Mr. John Sackton - I believe his named was referenced here the other day in debate - certainly has done that job over the past number of years, since Final Offer Selection came into being in the fishing industry and has done a commendable job, I believe, in trying to take steps down the road toward dealing with some of the mistrust that has plagued the industry prior to 1998. I think it is fair to say that there is still some of that there, but certainly not to the degree that it was back in the early to mid-1990s.

That, I guess, is the context of our debate. That was the situation that resulted in Final Offer Selection, and what we saw after Final Offer Selection came to the fishing industry was a period of relative stability, relative peace. I will say relative stability and relative peace because everything in the fishing industry is relative to some other time. While we did see some problems in the past five years under Final Offer Selection, relatively speaking they were minor and insignificant compared to what we saw in the previous years.

For those who do not know, I suppose, Final Offer Selection really - you know, the negotiating process still takes place. The fishing industry in the form of FANL and the fishermen's union, the FFAW, still go to the table, still negotiate for a period of time, still look at the market information and still try to arrive at a negotiated settlement. However, in the event that, that cannot happen, Mr. Speaker, both parties at a predetermined date, submit their final offers, their final negotiating positions to the arbitrator, who then decides which one of the final offers will be the price schedule, I guess - for lack of a better way of putting it - for that particular species for the period of time defined under the negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, that process did provide relative stability throughout that time period, and as I said, it was relative, relatively stable, relatively peaceful. That is not to say there were not problems. That is not to say there were not disputes. That is not to say there were not stoppages in harvesting and processing, some of them agreed to by both parties and some of them not agreed to by any party. I guess, that is probably the best way of putting it.

Certainly, the summer of 2001, early fall of 2001, I guess, saw the biggest problem that we have seen since Final Offer Selection came to this industry. At that time, we saw the processors and the fishermen agree to a summer shutdown in late June. They agreed that they would shut down the shrimp industry at that time because of poor market conditions, because of quality and yield problems that are associated with a summer fishery. They agreed the fishery would close down at that time with a view to reopening later in the year, in late August or early September. As we all know now, when they went back to the negotiating table to try and reopen the fishery, fishermen came to the realization, I think, that the price schedule that was there was something that was not affordable, that they could not afford to fish for, and that on just about every trip there was a high likelihood that there would be money lost on each voyage.

Mr. Speaker, there was, at that time, a decision - I do not know if it was collectively or individually, but some of the fleets anyway decided they would not sail, and FANL looked on that as a strike. They looked on some developments in the crab fishery later that fall, in particular in the small boat sector, disputes over post-season payments - for the lack of a better way to putting it - monies over and above the negotiated price that processors sometimes pay to fishermen individually, after the fact. There was a dispute over that, where protest lines were put up in front of some processing facilities, and again FANL looked on that as a strike, or some form of strike, a labour action anyway. I guess that is what brought us to where we are today. Even though, as I said, the Final Offer Selection form of negotiation did provide relative stability and relative peace in the industry since 1998 up until 2001, there were problems along the way and, you know, some of FANL's members and FANL, as an organization, were disappointed with the way that it went and I think made their views known, that they might consider opting out of Final Offer Selection when the time came. That was approximately a year ago, I think, that they first indicated that might be a possibility. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, we found ourselves back in the early fall of this year, back in October, when the time came, as it was legislated under the amendment that was made to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act back in April of 2001, I believe it was, when we amended this act last, there was a provision made there for either FANL or the FFAW, either one of them, to opt out of this process at this time. Really, even though we are amending the act today, FANL only exercised its right under the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act back about two months ago when they decided to opt out. I guess this is the reason why we are amending it today.

It is not an easy thing, I guess, for government to do, to bring legislation to the floor of the House of Assembly that takes away or amends somebody's rights as they were given approximately just about two years ago, but we all recognize, on this side of the House, why the government is doing what it is doing, why they brought this legislation to the floor of the House in these past couple of weeks. You know, we agree that we cannot go back to the pre-1998 era. We cannot go back to the days when the mechanism for setting prices in the fishing industry was the negotiation process that we had then; the one that led, almost invariably, throughout the mid-1990s up until 1997, to long, extensive and costly disputes in the fishing industry where we saw late start-up in the season, poorer quality because of the time that we were landing it, a rush to get it ashore, intense pressure on the processing sector to try to get it through, intense pressure on the harvesting sector to try to get it ashore. We do not want to go back to those days. I said that the other day in second reading, and I feel I am compelled to say it here again today.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. What it does, it gives everybody in the industry - the fishermen, the processors - an opportunity over the next year to try and fix what was wrong with the Final Offer Selection process or to try to find another system to replace the Final Offer Selection process.

I understand the minister said in her statements in the House and outside the House that she will instigate a review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, and I commend her for that. As I said to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I hope that, concurrent with that, coincidental with that, he would continue his discussions with FANL and with the FFAW, the fishermen and the processors, to try and see if this can be resolved before September 1, 2003, when the opportunity comes again for FANL or the FFAW to opt out of Final Offer Selection.

As I said, this is a stop-ap measure. It is something that only puts off - if nothing is done in the intervening period between now and next fall, we will almost invariably, almost certainly, I mean, find ourselves back in some similar predicament next fall.

Mr. Speaker, with that I think I will conclude my remarks. As I said, we will, on this side of the House, support this amendment to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act because we do not want to see the chaos that we saw in the 1990s; we do not want to see the chaos that we saw in 1997. We do not want to see a repeat of that. A $500 million industry, our shrimp and crab industry, is too important to the economy of this Province for us to jeopardize it with labour disputes.

Having said that, I do not think that we are taking away anybody's right to collective bargaining. We are not imposing anything, really, on anybody, other than they have to face, I guess - in the absence of a resolution between themselves - they have to deal with binding arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is too draconian, not by a long shot. It is something that many in our economy would like to see. Many facets of our economy would like to see that type of approach. It is one that has worked over the past four years, with some bugs. The challenge now for the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Fisheries, and the leadership in the processing and the harvesting sector, is to find a way of fixing the model that we have used for the last four years, or finding a way of replacing it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will again say that we will be supporting this legislation and thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words here at third reading on the legislation, Bill 31, which amends the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to continue the Final Offer Selection process to establish the prices for fish species in the Province.

It is important legislation, Mr. Speaker, although it is an interim measure. I have asked the minister - the Minister of Fisheries, at least - if he wants to address this at third reading, to talk about a longer-term solution here. Clearly, it deserves our support because it is legislation which ensures that this season there will be a Final Offer Selection processor arbitration available to the fishermen and fishers of the Province, the fishermen's union and their representatives, to ensure that we have a stable crab fishery in the first instance. This is the one that we are most concerned about right off, so that the Final Offer Selection process is unique to the arbitration of fish prices in this Province, Mr. Speaker, which allows parties to go through the negotiation process to try and establish what is a fair and reasonable price for the species. It has been used for crab, it has been used for shrimp, it has been used for cod, to establish a price.

The key for fishers has always been, for the last 500 years in this Province, the price of fish. The price of fish is the key determinant of what kind of income is going to be available to fishers to pay for their boats, their fuel, their gear, and to pay their crew. In short, they look after their boats for the long haul, maintenance, repairs, all of the expenses that go with that. Everything turns on the price of fish, and obviously the ability of them to look after themselves and their families all turns on the price of fish.

When it comes down to negotiating, the fact that Final Offer Selection is available is a unique kind of process that really makes parties try to give the best offer they possibly can. The reason they do is because, if they can be as reasonable as possible, the chance of their last bargaining position being accepted by the arbitrator is greater. If they are miles apart and if the parties go into a Final Offer Selection bargaining and they take a bargaining stance - well, we know the market price is really $2.50 but we are going to offer $1.85, we will go to arbitration and maybe the arbitrator will split the difference. Well, in Final Offer Selection there is no such thing as splitting the difference. There is no such thing as averaging the last position of the fishermen and the last position of the processor and say: Well, okay, we will meet them halfway. That is the expectation that often comes when you have interest arbitration. We see it in the police act, we see it in the firefighters act, you go and try to convince an arbitrator that the wages you are asking for are the best and the other side goes in and the government usually says: No, we can only afford so much, and the arbitrator comes somewhere in the middle. That encourages a particular style of bargaining. It encourages a style of bargaining that says: Well, we will offer the lowest we possibly can and that is the bargaining position we will take, and in the end we hope that the arbitration result will come closer to our bargaining position that the other.

With the Final Offer Selection, the incentives work the other way. The incentive is to be as reasonable as possible, to come as close as possible to what the true market value of a commodity is, what the true value is, so that if your position is as reasonable as you can be and the other party is out to lunch, well, then, it is the last position that you put that is going to be accepted by the arbitrator, and not that of the other side.

It is a process that has been tried as a pilot project initially. It was recommended to the parties by a task force set up in 1997-1998, brought to this House, established as a pilot project through legislation, then made a little more permanent with still the option to opt out.

When it came to light that FANL not only was going to opt out this year, even when they came to give up on their attempt to get certified as bargaining agents for all the processors in the Province, even when they gave that up in early December, they indicated an intention not to return to the Final Offer Selection process. That caused a certain amount of, I will not call it panic, but a very, very high level of concern in the fishing industry in the Province, particularly on the side of the fishermen's union and the individual fishers, the shrimp committees and crab committees, all of those who had a stake in making sure that this system worked well. The only complaints we have heard, Mr. Speaker, are from the processors. That is where we have heard the complaints.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of them, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: Not all of them, the member says. Yes, we have heard some complaints from the Official Opposition. They do not seem to be very happy, but, in terms of the fishing industry, what we have seen is that the fishermen's union and the shrimp committees and the fishermen want this process to continue. They believe in this process, they believe it works. So I think this legislation accomplishes that in the short term, and I say that intentionally. It only does in the short term carry on the process that we put in place a couple of years ago for one more year. I think we need a more permanent solution. I think that we would like to hear more from all the parties as to what a permanent solution would be. For my own self, I would think that if we legislated this as a permanent feature, that would be a good thing, but I would not want to suggest we do that without hearing the opinions of those who have a bigger stake in the operation of that process from day to day.

As it stands, Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, it is timely legislation, and it is absolutely vital legislation, to ensure that their will not be the kind of instability in the crab fishery that we have had in the past. The concerns that were expressed to me, Mr. Speaker, by fishers and by stakeholders on the fishing side of the industry, is that this is a very important process that ought to continue. They did not want to see the kind of damage that happened in the mid-1990s and early-1990s because it would tie up, in particular, the crab industry where the bulk of the fishing was done in July, when the prices were lousy, the quality was lousy in softshell and very difficult market conditions. Even more than that, Mr. Speaker, the fact that because this was happening, because in March and April and May and June there were no crab available from the market in this Province, then there was a serious deterioration in the market and the market interests in Newfoundland and Labrador crab.

These are the three major reasons, stability of price, stability of the industry and stability of the market, that are achieved by this Final Offer Selection process that has worked well in the past, and we should try to find a way to ensure that it continues to work in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words before we close debate on this particular bill that my colleague, the Minister of Labour, brought in. It is a very important bill for the people involved in the fishing industry in this Province, not only today but at least for the next year. It is a bill that we were not happy to bring into the House of Assembly but circumstances that occurred in the past few months made it imperative that we do this when the House sat before Christmas, because it is a good possibility that we will not open again prior to the opening of the fishery in April.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite explained how the Final Offer Selection model worked. We were very, very proud, Mr. Speaker, to bring in this Final Offer Selection legislation back in 1998. It was initiated first by my predecessor, I guess, the hon. John Efford. He hired the services of a very intelligent and well-respected individual here in the Province, Mr. David Vardy, to come up with some way of negotiating fish prices rather than going with the old system that we had prior to 1997. He developed this Final Offer Selection model. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, tells me it was his piece of legislation back in 1998, so I am sorry about that. I think it was initiated in the Department of Fisheries at that time and it fell under his department.

Anyway, like I said, Mr. David Vardy came up with the system and it has worked well in the past few years. Unfortunately, due to a number of circumstances this year in the industry, FANL decided that they no longer wanted to partake in the Final Offer Selection, and notified us of that back in October, which forced us to have to do something, even though we were aware, prior to October, that there was some thought of FANL pulling out. We did have a number of discussions over the summer and into the fall and especially after the date that they submitted their letter telling us that they were pulling out of the system. Out of all of our conversations that we had with members of FANL over the past few months, we could not come up with a resolution to the problem other than the legislation that we are forced to put on the table.

That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague and I waited so long before we presented this piece of legislation here this fall, because we were hoping that FANL would withdraw its letter of opting out and that the system would remain in place for another two years. We even went as far as to say that we could - because under the old legislation if you opt in, you are in for two years. We even offered to FANL that we could extend the opting out period for one year and we come in this fall and change the legislation slightly to allow them to stay in for a year, but that did not work, Mr. Speaker, and, as a result, we are here passing a piece of legislation today.

It is not a stop-gap measure as such, as has been categorized by the Opposition even though it is only going to be in place for one year. I am very confident that cooler heads will prevail over the winter and that we will have an opportunity to sit down with, not only FANL but the independent processors in the Province, as well as the FFAW who represent all the harvesters, and that, between us all, we can come to some reasonable resolution to this matter, and it will work itself out for the benefit of all those involved in this very, very important industry, the fishing industry in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in debate in the last few days, we talked about a number of issues. The Opposition raised a couple of issues pertaining to the industry and led some to believe that, had we acted on a report that was submitted by Mr. Vardy on the shrimp fishery about a year ago, that, somehow, we would have averted what happened with FANL opting out of the Final Offer Selection. That really, Mr. Speaker, is not the case and that is not true. Back when we had to shut down the shrimp fishery last fall, a year ago this September past, the government, led by myself and the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, tried to facilitate an agreement between FANL and the union. As a result of those talks, it was agreed upon by all three groups, government, FANL and the union, that we would do a in-depth study of the shrimp fishery in our Province. Since then, Mr. Vardy, along with two other individuals here in the Province, did a report for us that had thirty-eight recommendations. The unfortunate thing about the report, Mr. Speaker - and the members opposite criticized me for not responding to the report immediately and that we haven't put forward what we think should happen as a result of that report - but the unfortunate thing about the report is that there were thirty-eight recommendations. Of those thirty-eight recommendations, I think there were only twelve that the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture could act on alone, by itself. The others pertain to FANL, processors in the Province, the fisheries union, as well as DFO.

We are working with the other three groups to try and get everybody seated at the table and to come to some kind of a peaceful resolution as to which of these measures we should adopt, because there are some over which this government has absolutely no control. There are a number of recommendations in there that only the federal Minister of Fisheries can fix or enact or accept.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible)

MR. REID: The hon. Member for Bonavista South, obviously, pretends that he has a great interest in the fishery, but he is telling me to sit down, he does not want to listen to what I am saying. That is all right, I will continue to talk anyway.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to bring all four groups together and, hopefully, at the end of the day, everybody, all four groups, will realize what is in the best interest of the fishermen and fisherwomen of this Province, and that we can enact some of the resolutions, or the recommendations, that were made in that report. I know I am criticized for not enacting the recommendations of that report, but, as I said earlier, I can only deal with twelve of the thirty-eight of them, the others I have no control over.

For example, one of the recommendations is that we should extend the length of the processing season. The only way we can do that is try to extend the length of the harvesting season, and that is very difficult in a Province like ours in the middle of the North Atlantic where the climate, certainly, and the environment play a big role as to what time of the year you can fish. According to DFO regulations - this is only one case in point - inshore fish harvesters cannot purchase or build a boat that is longer than 64 feet 11 inches. In fact, many of the fishermen in the Province are restricted to vessels less than the 64 feet 11 inches. It is very difficult for those harvesters in those smaller vessels to be out prosecuting the shrimp fishery at this time of the year, when they are putting their lives in jeopardy.

We have been talking with the federal government, as long as I can remember, back in 1989, to try and get them to relax their restriction on boat size, because originally when they brought in those restrictions there was a competitive quota, and when the gun was fired everybody went out and started fishing the same time, and the more fish you could get the better.

Everybody today, Mr. Speaker, are under individual quotas. Therefore, the boat length should not play a role anymore, and it should be up to the individual fisherman or fisherwoman what size boat he or she wants to use in getting out and harvesting their own quota. If you have 20,000 pounds of crab to catch, it should not matter to the federal government if you catch that in an eighteen footer or if you catch that in a hundred and eighteen footer. That should not be the concern of DFO and Ottawa, the bureaucrats and the minister who sit in offices 2,000 miles away from the actual fishery. I challenge the federal minister, or any of the federal bureaucrats in Ottawa, to come down and go out 200 miles or 240 miles with an individual in a forty-foot boat at this time of the year and put their lives on the line. Obviously, they do not have to do that to feed their families, but many fishermen and fisherwomen in this Province are forced to do this because of a silly regulation that DFO has.

I do not want to take up any more time. What I am saying is that, in order to make this fishery work, we need the co-operation not only of the federal government; we need the co-operation of the fish processors in this Province, along with the harvesters, and that involves the union and the government. We are willing to sit down, Mr. Speaker, at any time with all of these groups and try and put some order into a fishery that means so much to the people of this Province.

In closing, while I can say it is regrettable that we have to bring in legislation to keep the Final Offer Selection model in place for another year, it is something that we are compelled to do and I think that most people in the Province realize it is something that we have to do for the benefit of those involved in the fishing industry, and the individuals in each of the communities around this Island who depend so heavily upon the fishery for their living.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let someone else have a few words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief, concluding remarks, because I believe everything that needs to said has been said. I want to thank all members in this House, Mr. Speaker, for contributing to this very important debate on Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will not address all the ills, all the concerns, of our fishing industry in this Province, but it is not intended to do that. It will, in fact, guarantee that our fishing industry opens on time and it will provide stability for our fishing industry this spring.

I represent an inland district, Grand Falls-Buchans, and I know full well what the fishery means to Grand Falls-Buchans. Every member in this Legislature today knows what the fishing industry means to their particular district. Even though they might represent a district where there is no fishing being done, we all know that fisherpeople spend their money in every district throughout our Province.

One of the things that the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, was that this was an interim measure. Perhaps it is, it will get us through this year, but what I want to say today, as I committed to the other day, we are going to undertake, as a government, a comprehensive review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, and I think that will provide an opportunity for all of the stakeholders to express their views. In the end, we may have a stronger act than we have today. We will hear the concerns of every side of the industry and we will take all these into account. I feel quite certain that if it is not in the spring sitting of the Legislature, it will be in the fall sitting, that we will come together again and we will amend this act. For the time being, it guarantees a lot. It guarantees that any negotiations in the fishing industry in 2003 will have to be carried out under the interest based model.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks and I think all people around this Province will breathe a sigh of relief when this act is passed today, because they know for certain there will not be chaos in the fishing industry in the spring, we will have stability, and that is what this act is all about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 8, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 23.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 9, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 33.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 8.

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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 8.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I say to the Premier, I don't have my car today. I may manage to get a ride home today, hopefully, if the weather isn't too bad. I don't want to have to walk that far.

While I am on the topic, talking about Supplementary Supply, it is indicative of what they spend on government policy. I am just wondering if it is the policy of this government, as a minister of the Crown - I do not know if he is speaking on behalf of Cabinet, on behalf of this Province - said that we should tax fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Sir.

In rural Newfoundland and Labrador today - and it is in the record of Hansard of this House - a minister of the Crown, last night, told us that we should put a tax on fish.

Look, people in the fishing industry, harvesters, have been hit hard enough without this government trying to tax a resource and taking taxes. I do not think they the ability anyway. It is federal jurisdiction, I would think, but the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the Member for Virginia Waters, said in this House last night, when he stood here, that they should put a tax on the fishing resource in our Province.

MR. NOEL: How is it different?

MR. SULLIVAN: How is it different? he said. He is agreeing. People have to pay licences and extreme costs. The government has driven the cost of operating extremely high. The amount of fish available, they have mismanaged it, and now to tell them they are going to catch a few thousand pounds of crab or cod, if you ever can catch another one, or any other species -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) money off it. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is saying you would make a lot of money off it. Sure, you would make a lot of money. If you taxed every pound of fish you would make a lot of money, but it should not happen, I say to the minister. This government is wrong in trying to tax fish, and talking about it, as a minister of the Crown, because when you speak as a minister you are speaking for government and you should not tax it. The minister should get up and tell us, point blank, that it is not a policy of this government to initiate action to tax the fishing resource in our Province.

Fishing has maintained this Province since its inception. People went out on the Grand Banks in dories. They were put out from vessels and they were told not to come back until the dory was full. They slaved and worked hard and built a fishery that employed over 30,000 people.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) tax oil?

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is now saying what?

MR. NOEL: Why should we tax oil?

MR. SULLIVAN: Why shouldn't you tax oil?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible). The issue I am debating here, I am mentioning here, I do not think it is right. I do not think it is right for this government to indicate they should be taxing fish.

MR. NOEL: The government (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister stood in this House last night.

I want to get to another point. I am going to move to another issue. Last week in this House I asked the Minister of Finance, and this is with specific reference to Bill 8, I said that she has broken the law of the Province by issuing special warrants. Here is what the minister said last week: The Financial Administration Act was not only never breached, it was held up to the highest level.

In a report tabled today by His Honour, the Speaker, from the Auditor General, tabled today in this House, dealing with the very same warrants I asked about, here is what the Auditor General - tabled in the House today - said, and substantiates and endorses what we have been saying in this House for the past number of years, and particularly last year. I will read it. In this bill here, this is $51 million in warrants. The Auditor General says that out of that $51 million, four special warrants, totalling $33.1 million, over 60 some per cent of that amount, were issued in March in contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you read that again?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The Auditor General said: $33.1 million was issued in March, 2002, in contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

I would like to know, if someone could tell me, what is the difference in contravening the Financial Administration Act and breaking the law? I do not see any difference. When you contravene the act, you break the law. Here is what the Auditor General said.

MR. LUSH: Contravening is more euphemistic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader said, contravening is more euphemistic. I do not care what you call it. Breaking the law is black and white. You either comply or you do not. That is right, you either comply or you do not with the law. It is not: I comply with it half. You cannot stand up and say: I am half pregnant, or a little bit. It is the same basic thing. It is black or white. You are or you are not. It is the same basic comparison.

This minister stood in this House last week and she said: We not only never breached it, we held it up to the highest level.

AN HON. MEMBER: She said what?

MR. SULLIVAN: We not only never breached the act, we held it up to the highest level.

Our Province's Auditor General -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You do not have to take my word, you do not have to believe the minister, you do not have to believe these, but you can go to a person who was appointed, that this government appointed, who reports to the House of Assembly, basically. It is a ten-year term that is independent, without any pressures from anybody whatsoever, and reports. I believe that somebody in such an independent position -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - the same as I sincerely believe that the Supreme Court of Canada brought down a decision, I would believe a decision on their interpretation of law, because these people are put in positions to render it and they are people who know the law.

The Auditor General is one who has studied accounting procedures, complying with national standards, has looked at these, year in and year out, has considerable experience in the field, and has stated that these special warrants, "were not presented at the time to the House of Assembly as either a Supplementary Supply Bill or included in the 2002-2003 budget, both of which would have resulted in debate and approval. The opportunity for presentation in the House of Assembly for debate and approval was available." He said, "With regards to presenting a Supplementary Supply Bill to the House of Assembly, three of the special warrants, totaling $32.4 million, were issued on 27 March, 2002, when the House of Assembly was in session. The fourth special warrant for $720,000 was issued on 15 March, 2002. Although the House of Assembly was not in session on that day, it was in session on the day before and was in session again on 19 March, 2002."

AN HON. MEMBER: She broke the law.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to add, she broke the law. Also Justice put a response in and said: This recording equipment was so badly needed; the breakdowns. We need it on March 15. Well, this House sat on March 11, March 12, March 13, and March 14 - and it was three years outdated. Why did you wait, shutdown the House on March 14 and issue a warrant on March 15? Was it that urgent? Did the equipment all of a sudden breakdown? I would say, no, because they were manipulating the finances of our Province, to give a result different than what was desired, and that is even confirmed by the Auditor General. To me, that is not being honest with the finances of our Province. That is not telling the truth with the finances of our Province.

MR. MANNING: Did you tell them that last week?

MR. SULLIVAN: I told them last week, I told them before, every year, they are breaking this law of our Province.

Here is what else he said, "With regards to the 2002-2003 budget, the Interim Supply portion of that budget was approved on 26 March 2002, therefore, all of the warrants could have been included in the 2002-2003 budget." Government said: Well, it is kind of late. We needed to get Interim Supply. Well, Interim Supply was obtained on March 26. We had warrants produced on March 15, March 22, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Contravene (inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: What does contravene mean?

MR. SULLIVAN: Webster. I am sure you heard tell of Webster. He is a prominent individual who has a considerable command of words and meanings in the English language. The word ‘contravene', according to Webster, means, to act or be (inaudible), to violate, as contravene a legal order. In other words, you are contravening the law. The law is a legal order. So, you are contravening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what is happening with this.

I wonder has the Government House Leader got a new word now for breaking the law. Has he got a new word that is more euphemistic than contravening, I wonder? Has a got a bigger word? Look, you can call it what you like. I believe the Auditor General, when he said that this government broke the law on thirty-three by $1 million of the money that was improperly taken from taxpayers of this Province, out to the market and borrow, and incurred costs. It is wrong to do that.

Now, the Auditor General goes on and describes, in case this government does not know, that you need to comply with the law under the Financial Administration Act Section 28. We know that there are different applications of it. When the House is in session, it must be tabled in three days. The minister tabled warrants, issued warrants on March 22. She issued warrants on March 22. The House was open all that next week and never tabled them until March 27, five days later. The House was in session. Three days, according to the act.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the member alleges that special warrants were issued on March 22, 2002- I gather you are referring to. I would ask him to identify which warrants were issued on March 22, because my records show, on behalf of government, that there were no special warrants issued on March 22. There simply were no special warrants issued on March 22. If he is going to allege that they were issued, let him highlight them, let him tell him me which ones they are and I will agree with him if I am wrong or I will defend my position, on behalf of government, if I am right.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will speak again if nobody stands to speak in committee.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I said March 22. I meant to say March 27 instead of March 22. I have already said March 27, and I just made a mistake in saying March 22. They are the ones that I refer to and the Auditor General refers to. It was a slip that I said March 22.

In case the minister wants to be clear on what they are, I will deal with them. On page 22 - and the reason it was confusing, I say to the minister, is because when we received them in the House, and I have copies of them all here, the two looks like a seven on the special one that was signed. I have the copies here if the minister wants to take a look after. When I glanced the twenty-two looks very much like a twenty-seven, even though I said twenty-seven the first time. He could take a look after and I will show him each of these, and it is difficult to tell.

Anyway, it is in print here, typed, and it is very easy to make out. On March 27 they approved, basically, $10.4 million in education. Here is what they said: The Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, did they need that money, then, the $10.4 million? Did they need it? No. They had not used up their credit. Their credit line would have allowed them to use that and then get the money. There was not an urgent need because they still had a line of credit. They had not used up that portion. The Auditor General referenced that and, therefore they broke the law when they deliberately did not need that money. If it was so urgently needed, they could have used their line of credit and then accessed it after, legally, and they did not do it. So, that is a blatant disregard for the laws of this Province and taxpayers' money, and that is wrong.

The minister stood and contradicted me, basically said I was a liar. I can say that about myself. Basically she said it. She did not use the words, granted. And now the Auditor General confirms what I said. The Auditor General confirms that they broke the law. I have said before, we could have done two things. We could have had a supply bill before this House. Here we are, we table warrants and we shut the House down. The very day the warrants were tabled, we shut the House down. What happened the day before we shut it down and tabled warrants? We passed Interim Supply. We gave permission to this government for over $1 billion on March 26, the day before, and then they turn around and they table $33.1 million the next day. That is not being upfront, it is not being honest with the people, Mr. Chairman. That is contrary to the law of our Province. It contravenes it. That means it breaks it, it violates it. If violating something is not breaking it, what is? You break someone's trust, you violate it. I can tell you this government is good at doing that.

Now, here is what the Auditor General said about some of these specific areas, and I would like to touch on those four areas the Auditor General identified. He said: The Department of Justice, "...$720,000 for Supreme Court for the purchase of digital recording equipment for the various court rooms. These courts were using the existing equipment at the time and the purchase of replacement of equipment, while important, was not an urgency in relation to court operations."

Now, the Justice department responded to that. They gave a response, basically. They put forth a response, trying to put up an argument. Here is what the Justice Department said, "Recording equipment is essential to the operations of the Courts." We agree. It says, "Although existing equipment, purchased in 1991, was approximately 3 years past its useful life, the Department, in the interest of good stewardship, was attempting to extend its usefulness by one more year." Well that is noble, to try to extend its usefulness. We do not disagree with that.

"However, throughout the fiscal 01/02 breakdowns and malfunctioning was becoming frequent. Some equipment was held together with tape and rubber bands." I want to ask: Did the rubber bands burst on March 15? Was there any damage on the 11, 12, 13, or 14,or the months before that? The rubber bands snapped on March 15 and they ran off with a warrant for $720,000 to get new equipment. That is what it is saying. That answer is silly.

The government knew it was three years beyond the lifespan for the equipment. They knew it was not working properly. What should they have done? They should have added that to a supply bill. They should have asked for funding of the House. If it is a needed cause, for health care, education, even court systems, whatever is needed, if it is essential, we would have gotten up and supported it. We have never, since I was elected here in this House, failed to approve Interim Supply or even failed to get it in on time, by March 31. We have never done it. We have always done it. Sometimes it got done by the end of March. Last year it got done by March 26 and this government then adjourned the House. I might add, the House was in session from March 11 to March 14, and the March 15 warrant here, not only did it violate it but it did on another count. There is another window, that government used a technicality that they did not breach it on the second count, and the reason they did not breach it on the time frame in addition, not because of the urgency, was that the House opened on the March 11 but that was a continuation of the last session. Then it prorogued on March 14, so technically the House was not in session on March 15. Then we opened up an new session on March 19 and it was only during that weekend it was not. So, technically, it would have breached it on a time frame in addition to the urgency had it not prorogued on March 14. So, can you imagine, four days of sitting here debating, and all of a sudden it closes and they approve money and say it is because we prorogued it yesterday, the House is not in session now and therefore it is closed. Technically, on that point, the time frame, yes, but when the House sat for four days, I do not buy that argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: On March 15, technically, but they still broke it. The Auditor General still said, on March 15, that particular one there broke the Financial Administration Act; contravened it is the word of the Auditor General. I will not put words in his mouth, but Webster's says contravene is violate. That is what Webster's says here. It means violate the law. I say another word for that is break the law, and they should not be allowed to get away with it. The people of this Province should be sick and tired of getting the wrong information out there now and I hope they will render their judgement in due course. I hope they will render their judgement on what is happening.

Now, I want to go back to these four instances, and I will get a chance to look at each of these four areas where the Auditor General agrees with issues we raised and how it violated it. Sixty-some per cent of the warrants that were issued, we never contested. (Inaudible) the warrants that were issued earlier. We never said the warrant on September 18 or November violated it. We never said that. We said it did not. It complied with meeting the urgent need basis or tabling in time, but we did say on these other particular ones. The first one, I just talked about the Department of Justice, the $720,000.

Now, the Department of Education, I made some reference to that, here is what the Auditor General said about the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation. It said it, "...has a line of credit which at that date had not been fully used. Therefore, the Corporation had access to cash and could have waited the four days (one business day) until funding could have been made available from the 2002-03 budget. Therefore, the $4 million portion of the special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act." That is what they indicated.

Now, under the Department of Health and Community Services, the Auditor General indicated, "On 27 March 2002 the Department received a special warrant relating to a transfer to various health care boards for operational funding of $10.9 million. The boards could have waited the four days (one business day) until funding could have been available from the 2002-03 budget. Therefore, this special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

Then he went on to say, "On 27 March 2002 the Department received a special warrant relating to a transfer to various health care boards for capital funding of $17.5 million. The boards could have waited the four days (one business day) until funding could have been made available from the 2002-03 budget. Therefore, this special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

Why is it? There is a reason why they broke the law, and the reason is this: They had $51 million - $33.1 million here, the Auditor General said, in March. Why did they do it? Because they wanted to show the public that our Province was $33.1 million, or give them the impression that it was $33.1 million better off than it really was. That is what they did. That, to me, is misleading the public and giving an impression.

The Auditor General has said on numerous occasions, year after year -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just to finish my point?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: My mike is not on, so I don't know if I am recognized or if the system has broken down.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I waited until my mike came on because I am sure, as much as some members of the House on the other side in particular want to hear me once, nobody would probably want to hear me twice. I would not want to have to repeat myself.

I want to make a few comments for the record and for the benefit of the people in the Province, particularly those who are watching as we speak, on television, because if you listen to the hon. the Finance critic, the Member for Ferryland, you would almost conclude from his comments - in fact, you might come to the conclusion from his comments that we somehow or other, on behalf of the people of the Province, government, we sort of robbed the money that the Treasury took in, and that we are held to account for how we spent it. Nothing, Mr. Chairman, could be further from the truth.

There are two or three points I would like to raise. Number one is that the proposition or the basis on which the Auditor General makes the statement that, in his opinion, the Financial Administration Act was broken, was because, in his opinion, he judged the expenditures or the accounts to which we put the expenditures as not being urgent.

I say, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, that is an opinion that he has expressed. It was, however, the opinion of government, and we are the elected government representing the people of the Province and elected by the people of the Province, it was, in the opinion of government, necessary to expend the money that we spent on health, education and in the area of justice when we spent it and as we spent it. So, the context in which the hon. member makes the supporting proposition for the Auditor General that we contravened the act is simply based on the fact that in the opinion of the Auditor General the expenditures were not urgent; therefore, the act was broken.

I say, on behalf of government, that it was our judgement at the time - and we hold to this, that it was our judgement at the time - and it is our judgement now, that these expenditures were necessary to be made and they were necessary to be made at the point in time when we made them by issuing those special warrants. We make no apologizes for that.

The fact of the matter also, Mr. Chairman, is this: that every cent, right to the copper, or at least right to the dollar - I think our estimates and our public accounts are rounded off in dollars, so I will say right to the dollar as opposed to right to the copper - we have accounted, since we have been government, for every single penny that has been collected by the Treasury, every cent of revenue that has come in, and every expenditure that we have made. The challenge of government always is this: To make decisions about public expenditures when we deem, as government, on behalf of the people, it is the right time to make them.

Could some of these expenditures have waited four days, as the Auditor General has said, and the sky would not have fallen? I would agree with the Auditor General that he is probably right. If we had not made those expenditures at that particular time, and waited another four days, yes, the sky would not have fallen. I do not think the health system would have collapsed, and I do not think the educational system would have fallen down, but the fact of the matter is, that it was our judgement as government that on the days we made the expenditures it was the right thing to do for the right purpose, and timing is ours by choice because we are government. We decide on the timing of certain expenditures. We decide on the timing of virtually everything that happens in government, because we are charged with that responsibility.

I would also make reference to the hon. member's assertion that we did not report to this House within the required time frames, the issuance of the special warrants. The Minister of Finance rose in her place a couple of nights ago and read into the record when it was we issued warrants throughout the fiscal year, 2001-2002, and when it was we reported them to the House. In every instance - although the hon. member tries to make a point that technically we may have been outside the time frames in one instance, the fact of the matter is, in every instance - we complied with the Financial Administration Act by reporting to the House exactly, or as prescribed within the time frames, that we were required to do so.

I think, Mr. Chair, the people of the Province do understand and do believe that, notwithstanding the (inaudible) type of presentation that is put forward by the Finance critic, and we respect the Finance critic, by the way, we respect the role of the Finance critic in this House. We respect the role of the Opposition in this House. It is part of our parliamentary system. It is part of parliamentary tradition, that oppositions are required to hold governments accountable for their actions and for what they do. We have no difficulty with the Opposition challenging us to explain, to defend and to report, as we should, to the people of the Province, but I say to the people of the Province, they should also understand, as I believe they do, and they appreciate it - at least they have shown it for the last thirteen or fourteen years in election over election - they have appreciated and supported the way that we have managed the finances of the Province, appreciated and supported the way that we have governed this Province and, in large measure, they are with us in terms of understanding and agreeing with the actions that we have taken.

Mr. Chair, we have no intention, on this side of the House, we have no desire on this side of the House, to be anything but open, to be transparent, and to report to the people of the Province, as we are required to, on every issue and on every decision that we take, in particular, I would say, with respect to financial issues. There is nothing, probably, that raises concerns in any organization, whether it is a business corporation or whether it is in the government realm, or even if it is in our own personal finances or our own personal circumstances, there is nothing really that raises certain concerns more so than how we spend our money, how we manage our resources, and certainly how we manage the resources of others, which is what we are charged to do in government.

I am not going to read into the record again the special warrants that we issued during the month of March. That has already been done. I would ask the hon. the Finance critic to acknowledge - and I know the reference to March 22 was a Freudian slip. He meant to say March 27, and I accept that. I asked the question honestly of him because I could not find anything on March 22, so I wanted that clarified. I do not think he deliberately, on that account, was trying to mislead the House at all -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and I appreciate that, but I would also ask him to acknowledge that, based on the dates of the issuance of the warrants, and based on the dates that the warrants were reported and tabled in this House, that we in fact, in all instances, complied with the Financial Administration Act.

I would suggest that it would be to his benefit to acknowledge when it is we have complied, and to point out if, in fact, there are instances where we have not complied. In this circumstance, the Auditor General has a right to his opinion, the Auditor General has a right to his view, but, as government, we also have a right and a responsibility to defend the actions that we have taken.

The important thing, I believe, I would say just before I sit down, because I do not want to take any more time than is necessary, the important thing for all us is to ensure that the people of the Province understand that we have accounted for and we have held ourselves, and we are happy to be held accountable, for very dollar that we spend on their behalf. If the hon. the Finance critic can point out where it is in the $3.4 billion or $3.7 billion budget that we had last year and that we have reported to the public accounts on, if he can point out where it is that we have misappropriated $1, I would ask him to stand and point out where it is we have misappropriated or where we have robbed the people of this Province of $1 of revenue that has come in. I say to him, we have held ourselves accountable -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

- and the Auditor General has held us accountable, and we are happy to defend how it is we have governed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to stand today and talk about the bill before us, which is the Supplementary Supply Bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is interested to note what the Minister of Mines and Energy talked about today. He just said that there has been information left, or an impression left, that government somehow have stolen the money or misappropriated it. That is not true. No assertion was made by the Member for Ferryland or anybody else to that effect.

What we are talking about, and it is important to put it in context, we are debating a bill called Supplementary Supply. Supplementary Supply is money that this government, the Cabinet, have issued, back before the Budget last year. Back last year, on March 25, the Member for Ferryland, in his capacity as the critic for Finance, asked questions to the Minister of Finance: Had government issued any special warrants so far in March, or were they going to by the end of March? Now, there was no clear answer. Any unbiased look at Hansard would demonstrate clearly, there was no clear answer.

Last week, Mr. Chairman, we asked questions in the House about contravention of the Financial Administration Act, because that is what we are talking about. We asked him on specific bills related to this bill, Supplementary Supply, special warrants that government had passed. The minister's responses are in Hansard, that government, in no way, shape or form, contravened the act, violated the act; they lived up to the letter of the law.

Today in this House, the Auditor General has tabled his report and right up front here is what he says, "In order for the Members of the House of Assembly to discharge their responsibility in assessing government's performance, government has to provide them with information that can be used for that purpose." That is what the Auditor General says. These are not my words. If any member takes exception to what I am talking about, deal with the Auditor General, because those are his words, not mine.

"The information should show how much funding was provided by the Legislature, what was planned to be accomplished with this funding, how much of the funding was actually spent and what was actually accomplished."

Now, Mr. Chair, he goes on to say - let me finish this - "However, again this year, Government has not provided the Members of the House of Assembly with information that could be used to assess its performance."

Mr. Chairman, those are pretty serious statements made by the Auditor General. One of the basic functions that we have - this is not a privilege for us, this is a right that every member enjoys in this House - one of the reasons we exist, is to discuss the appropriations of this Legislature, where money is being spent, how it is being spent, to what purpose it is being spent, whatever it may be, so that we have full disclosure in the House.

Last week we talked about that with respect to this bill and the special warrants. Lo and behold, this year, this day, the very specific acts that we were talking about in terms of special warrants that were issued, Mr. Chair, here is what the Auditor General said about the very questions we asked last week, "Our review of the nine special warrants totalling $51.0 million which were issued during 2001-02 disclosed that four special warrants totalling $33.1 million were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act in that they were not urgently required. Our review disclosed...".

In answer to the Minister of Mines and Energy, nobody is making assertions or assumptions or allegations that money was misappropriated or stolen. That is not true. Nobody is making those allegations whatsoever. What we have said last week, and in previous months, which is now confirmed in the opinion of the Auditor General, is that it was issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. Special warrants are always issued. If it is urgent, if it is needed, if the House is open, a bill should be put before the House to discuss why it is urgent and it is needed.

Now, let's talk about the special warrants, Mr. Chair, because it is important. The one dealing with the Department of Education. "On 27 March 2002 the Department received a special warrant in the amount of $10.4 million which included $4 million relating to the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation." A laudable goal, no question about it. "The Corporation has a line of credit which at that date had not been fully used." Here is where the Auditor General's opinion is important, "Therefore..." - based upon that - "...the Corporation had access to cash and could have waited the four days (one business day) ..." - that is what we are talking about, one business day - "...until funding could have been made available from the 2002-03 budget. Therefore, the $4 million portion of the special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act." The point we made last week, Mr. Chair, that was the exact point we made last week in terms of contravention of the act, not urgently required, and the fact that it was done prior to the Budget was to, in some way, make the 2002-2003, meaning this year's Budget, look better than it actually was.

The second one he deals with - and this is extremely important - the Department of Health and Community Services. In rasing the questions last week dealing with this particular warrant, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance and other government members and ministers said: So, what would the members have us do? Not provide drugs to our seniors in the Province? Not provide money to continue health programs? That was the allegation and the question put back to us. So we did not want the Department of Health to continue to operate. We did not want the Department of Health to continue to provide services to people in the Province.

Now, what the Auditor General has said and what is found certainly contradicts what was put forward last week by members opposite. Here is what he said, "On 27 March 2002 the Department received a special warrant relating to a transfer to various health care boards for operational funding of $10.9 million. The boards could have waited the four days (one business day) until funding could have been made available from the 2002-03 budget. Therefore, this special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

Was there any danger whatsoever of drug programs or a drug program to seniors or anybody else in this Province in jeopardy because this was not included in this Budget, that there was a special warrant issued outside of this House while this House was in session? No, Mr. Chair, there was no jeopardy. There was no jeopardy whatsoever for the Department of Health and Community Services, or any interruption to be provided because this government, issuing this warrant, would have not put it in jeopardy. Now, the fact is, the Auditor General looks at compliance. Everybody understands that, but in this instance, one more business day. That is all that this government had to do. So, the question is why, and the answer is clear. To make this year's Budget look better than it actually was.

The third special warrant, Mr. Chair, again to the Department of Health and Community Services. I remind people, and members on both sides of the House, that in trying to answer the questions put forward by members on this side last week, not only on special warrants but on the very four special warrants that the Auditor General has highlighted in this report this year, members said again on this issue: So, you did not want health care to continue in the Province. You wanted us to interrupt the programs and services being provided to the people of the Province. Absolutely not true, what we said last week. Mr. Chairman, again the Auditor General's findings and opinion contradict what the members opposite said in response to our questions last week.

Here is what was said: On March 27, 2002, the department received a special warrant relating to a transfer to various health care boards for capital funding of $17.5 million. If that had come to the House, Mr. Chair, if that special warrant, in a supply bill, had come to the House saying that we needed $17.5 million for capital funding to the boards, what would have happened? We would have had the opportunity, as members in this House, to discuss what the capital funding was going to be used for; different hospital construction. Where was it going to be spent? We, Mr. Chairman, did not have that opportunity.

Here is what the Auditor General said about that warrant. "The boards could have waited the four days (one business day) until funding could have been made available from the 2002-03 budget. Therefore, this special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

Those are not my words, those are read directly from the report and the opinion of the Auditor General.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

I know there are others who want to speak to this issue.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to have a few moments here about this finance bill, to talk about the public finances of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, when you look at where we are today compared to where we were, there has been a very good job done of trying to deal with bringing forward public services and also managing the public finances. I think we have to put it in perspective when we are looking at this issue. It is always good to have to look at the history, to look at where we were and the challenges that have been faced to get to this point. It is very important to do that. So, it is good to see that the Auditor General's Report is out so we can see if there is anything that needs to be improved upon. That is always something that government wants to do. In this case, we will review it and all be able to do it again.

This Province, since 1989, has been wrestling with the finances of the Province, trying to get them back in line, trying to deal with them properly, trying to straighten out a lot of problems that were left unstraightened out. That has been the attempt, and I think it has been done very well over the years if you look at it, especially the last half dozen years. In the early part of the 1990s we were faced with, not only dealing with the financial problem, which was a big problem that the Wells administration took over in 1989. That was big problem to face off with, but then we were dealing with the cod crisis that hit us in 1992. We had to deal with the whole situation there with the federal government and whether or not there would be a compensation package. That affected our rural economy, it affected our tax base, to try to generate revenues that would keep our services flowing for the people of the Province. That was a challenge to take on, as a government, at the time. We have been laying the groundwork to try to deal with those issues on a continuous basis. That is part of the perspective that we have to take into account here when you see and look at the public finances, Mr. Chairman.

Next year, as we look forward, one of the issues that we are trying to wrestle with is with the federal government on getting our equalization payments. So is Nova Scotia. We are trying to get those equalization payments brought up to scratch, brought up to the appropriate level that we should be receiving, so that we can provide services in this Province. That is an important issue for us, Mr. Chairman. The cousins I have in Ottawa are not my cousins at this point because, as far as I am concerned, Ottawa is going to have to get it together when it comes to the revenues for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: When it comes to the Atlantic Accord, we are supposed to be the principal beneficiary and it is about time that we were. So, that has to be and we are working on that, our Premier is working on it, Nova Scotia is working on it, and we have to get the attention of Ottawa, in a number of ways, to deal with the issue. We intend on trying to do that. We have been attempting to do so. We are looking at some other inventive ways in which to do that. It is important for us to straighten out this conception that exists up in Ottawa with the bureaucracy that you have to give transfer payments to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not transfer payments that we are receiving. We are not receiving what we should be receiving. There is a lot more going out of this Province. When the Royal Commission gets finished its work, I hope in the near future, in the next months, I believe that, under the chairmanship of Vic Young, we are going to see a report that is going to show the financial situation and what is flowing out of here for revenues that we create in this Province and what is coming in. I think a lot of people are going to be shocked, because it is the other way around.

We have to get that message across on Bay Street in Toronto and we have to get it across in Ottawa. We are going to be meeting with our MPs here shortly to talk to them about this, because we need them on side, our Newfoundland MPs and Labrador MPs. We need them on side, Mr. Chairman. We need them on side and we need the senators on side, and every bit of influence we can get in Ottawa, we need to use it now. We have resources coming on stream and we are not getting what we should be for the revenue rents of those resources. That is an issue we have to wrestle with and we are going to wrestle with it, Mr. Chairman; we are going to wrestle with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: The first thing is, you have to admit you have a problem, and we have a problem. We are admitting that we have a problem. We are trying to get these revenues out of Ottawa, and there are a number of mechanisms that we are going to have to look at in order to achieve it. We have been attempting to negotiate. We have been attempting to do a range of things with Ottawa to get the finance officials to understand it.

Mr. Chairman, we may have to get more radical; I am not sure. Hopefully, in the new year some radical moves may be made, because, really, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that revenues are not coming to this Province that should be coming here and that we are not able to properly service the debt load and we are not able to properly service the other challenges that we have.

I am amazed that the Finance Minister in this Province has an A rating. We got an A financial rating from the bonding houses on Wall Street. That is the first time in probably three decades that has occurred. So, that is amazing, given the challenges that we have trying to straighten out the financial transactions with Ottawa. If we could straighten that out, this Province would not have that much of a problem right now and our budget would be in a surplus position and we would be doing better and we would be able to announce that we have incentive programs for business activity. We would be able to announce that we have more mineral exploration programs. We would be able to announce that health care has more funding, Mr. Chairman.

What we have to do is straighten out that problem with Ottawa. Here on this side, we are working on ways to do it and we are going to continue to do it, because it affects the public finances of this Province and it affects every soul in this Province. It affects education, it affects health care, it affects everything. It affects the economy. If the Atlantic Accord is going to say principal beneficiary, well it is time for Ottawa to pay, Mr. Chairman. It is time for them to pay.

As we work on that and also work on trying to straighten out and get more revenues for this Province on mineral developments. We are (inaudible) it with Voisey's Bay, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we will have to go to the black armband. When the Tories were in power here and the Tories were in power in Ottawa, even though they were the cousins, once in a while they had a little problem, so what they would do is they would have a black armband day. So maybe we will have to get inventive. We will have to look at our options.

Again, that is an issue that we have to focus on. That is the issue that we are focusing on, because we need to straighten out the deal with Ottawa. We need to straighten it out. We came on in 1949. We signed the Terms of Union and half of it, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, is not being kept up to. It is time that it was kept up to.

As I said, the Royal Commission, I think their report is going to be substantial, I believe it will be significant, because it is also examining the financial transactions between Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to break through the myth that in this Province you have to give transfer payments for it to survive. The people here are surviving, but when they create some wealth they need to be able to keep it. That is why we, as a government, are attempting to do that, Mr. Chairman. We are attempting to deal with the situation.

Now we are wrestling with a fisheries issue, again, that might hit us on the West Coast, or on the North Coast, or South Coast. Again, we have to wonder what Ottawa is going to do. We have to wonder what they are going to do. Now, they will pay attention to Quebec on the Southern Shore because of the seventy-seven MPs, but we only have seven MPS here. So we have to figure out a way, and that means that collectively we have to come together to figure out some new ways to deal with Ottawa.

I am looking forward to the Royal Commission trying to deal with some of these issues in an aggressive fashion, and also in an inventive way, because sometimes you can be looking at a problem and not see a solution. We have to bring the best minds together to try to solve the problem. I believe that is what we are trying to do here on this side. I think actually all members of the House want to see this happen. I think that is the agenda that we have to move forward on. I think it is very important that we move forward on it, because we have a lot of challenges ahead of us in this Province to provide services, and to create an economy that can bustle and hustle.

We are dealing with a lot of downloading of services from Ottawa to this Province, which should not be occurring. So we have some messages for the crowd in Ottawa. Our MPs are going to work with us to try to get that message across because we have no choice. We have no choice!

It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we put forward a plan to deal with these issues, and we are and we are working on it. Like I said, the one thing about this government is that it does face the challenge; it has faced the challenge. The other thing it does is that, when it comes to public finances, it deals with them upfront. That is what we have been doing. We have been facing that challenge, dealing with the challenges, and they have been very daunting, when you look at the public finances dealing with the downloading of the federal budget deficit in 1993 that they had, and they pretty well got rid of their deficient by downloading and not providing transfer payments to the provinces. So that is very important.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair, we will be back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am really looking forward to saying a few words on Bill 8, which is referred to basically as the Supplementary Supply Bill.

Now, Mr. Chair, people should understand the way government accesses money and gets approval to spend money in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. You have the budget which is approved each year by March 31, usually, in this House of Assembly. It is brought to the House of Assembly, debated and approved. That is where they get the bulk of their money. Sometimes we have to give them interim supply, in the interim, so they can start spending money to pay bills or whatever the case may be. Then we have what we refer to as the Supplementary Supply Bill, which is this, Mr. Chair: That government comes to the House looking for money over and above what was budgeted for in the Budget, which is what we are doing here. It is strange that today, or it is a coincidence, that the Auditor General's Report comes on the very day that we are discussing this Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 8, in that the special warrants (inaudible). This bill here is to basically approve the special warrants that were spent last year in this budget.

There are certain requirements for the government to spend special warrants. It has to be urgent and there have to be some serious consequences for the public to have government's approval to spend these special warrants. For the past number of years, we, on this side of the House, have been making an issue of these special warrants, not only us, on this side of the House, but the Auditor General. Each year, for the past number of years, Mr. Chair, the Auditor General has stated that this administration has been contravening the Public Tendering Act. The Minister of Environment was just up on his feet, and the Minister of Mines and Energy was up earlier. Basically, the Premier must be giving these people courses in how to twist the facts.

Here is it in black and white, the Auditor General's Report. I will read one sentence: Four special warrants totaling $33.1 million were issued in March, 2002 in contravention of the Financial Administration Act, in that, in our opinion, there was no urgent requirement. As a matter of fact, in March the House of Assembly was open. These could have easily been brought to us, at that point in time, for discussion. They were tabled in the last few days. There is no need for those special warrants to be issued. A Supply Bill should have been brought to the House and the case made by government to spend this money. That is basically what is going on.

This, Mr. Chair, is all about trust. This bill is all about trust. The members may laugh at that, but government cannot be saying one thing all the time and doing something completely different, which is what this administration has been doing for years. They will get up and justify and rationalize. For example, when the Minister of Mines and Energy was up he said: We have been accountable for every cent. That is not the issue here. What we are talking about is this administration contravening, breaking the law, of the Financial Administration Act.

Some members on the other side may get up and look back ten, fifteen or twenty years and say this was done before. Two wrongs do not make a right, Mr. Chair, two wrongs do not make a right. The Minister of Mines and Energy talked about being accountable for every cent, but that does not alter the fact that they broke the law. For example, it has to be urgent. It was either last year or the year before, I distinctly remember, that there were special warrants issued. Why did they do it? Issued in March or April, special warrants. It had to be urgent and of a dire consequence to the public of the Province. It was issued in March and when was the money spent? In September, some five to six months later, the money was spent. Where was the urgency there? That is just one example, Mr. Chairman, of what this administration has been doing. Why do they do this? Why do they abuse the special warrants?

It is in the Auditor General's Report, Mr. Chair; to alter, to manipulate the bottom line of the Budget. Each year, we have this Administration saying X amount of dollars for a deficit. I will give you a few examples. In 1998-1999, government stated that there will be a $33 million deficit on current capital account, but the consolidated summary financial statement showed a real deficit of $187 million. Now, that is the government's own financial experts telling them this. In 1999-2000, they said it was going to be $33 million; $269 million deficit again. Mr. Chairman, these are their own financial experts within the Department of Finance saying: Listen, it is $269 million. In 2000-2001, $34 million, they said would be the deficit, and what was it? Three-hundred and fifty million. They are not being upfront with the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are using special warrants, on many occasions, to manipulate the bottom line.

The Minister of Finance was up the other day saying: We brought down the number of special warrants. The number of special warrants, Mr. Chair, but let's look at the amounts, the special warrants issued in March of each year. In March in 2000, $70.8 million; 2001, $33 million; 2002, $48.2 million. They are trying to tell the people of the Province that the deficit is in the $30 millions. The minister said this year, $80 million. It went up to $90 million. The Auditor General comes out with the financial report just in November; $473 million for this past year, March of 2002. They are trying to tell the people, basically misleading the people with misrepresentation and not being upfront with the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what this is about, trust.

Now, we had the members over there earlier talking - and I was amused when the Minister of Environment was up talking about since 1949. We have to find new ways to deal with Ottawa. Now, thirteen years in power in this Province and now they are only realizing you have to find new ways to deal with Ottawa. What have they been at? Talk about taking time to learn something, being slow. Now they are finally realizing that they have to -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: See, Mr. Chair, how the truth hurts, how it cuts to the core. We have the Minister of - what is he the minister of? Intergovernmental Affairs, is it? No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government Services.

MR. J. BYRNE: Government Services and Lands. That will tell you now how well known he is. He is sitting opposite me and we still cannot tell what he is the minister of. The Minister of Government Services and Lands over there now, who very rarely speaks to anything, was up last night talking that we should tax the fishery. He talked about the fishery resource in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe that is one of the new things he would like to do with Ottawa. Maybe it is one of the new things he would like to negotiate with Ottawa, is to tax the fishery. Is that what the Minister of Government Services and Lands is talking about?

Now, let's talk about the debt again and talk about the job that this administration is doing. The Minister of Mines and Energy was up talking about the great job the Minister of Finance is doing. The Minister of Environment doing the same thing. Let's look at the debt, the total debt of the Province. The debt has climbed 37 per cent since 1994, Mr. Chair. It has gone from $6.5 billion in 1994 to $8.9 billion today. This administration, handling the finances of this Province, in what they are saying in a financially responsible way, and they after increasing the debt. Listen now. Since 1994, in a matter of eight years, it has gone up 37 per cent from. From 1949 to 1994, it was $6.5 billion and today it is $8.9 billion. So, in a matter of six to eight years, it has gone up 37 per cent. These people will stand in their place and tell the people of the Province what a great job they are doing, what a fantastic job they are doing, Mr. Chair, then they will stand and tell the people of the Province, boldly, that the deficit is $33 million or it is $80 million, and it ten times that. It is no wonder the people of the Province are losing trust in this administration daily, as we speak, Mr. Chair, and I can understand why.

Special warrants, again: For some strange reason the administration, this administration, refuses to accept the statements of the Auditor General, the statements of the financial comptrollers of the Province, within their own Department of Finance, who tell them each year their deficit is ten times what they are telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they want us to approve another $51 million that they spent when they could have easily brought it to the House of Assembly - most of it- in the Supplementary Supply Bill, last March when the House was open. Now, Mr. Chair, why would we want to support them on this?

Then they will get up, and here is their logic, here is their argument, Mr. Chair, that we are spending the money on certain services. They try to make us feel bad for even criticizing, constructive criticism over here. It is not the money or why it is being spent or where it is being spent. That is not the point we are making. The point that we are making is the process. There are laws in this Province, there are certain processes to follow, and this administration have not been doing it for years, Mr. Chair, and the question is why. It is because they want to manipulate the bottom line.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, maybe I will have a chance to get up later on, when I am refused leave here today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to have a few words about the Supplementary Supply. I was quite intrigued by the hon. member who just spoke and was rather-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Pardon?

MR. NOEL: Intrigued by that!

MR. LUSH: He was rather flabbergasted by the fact that we were still searching for a way to deal with Ottawa. He was befuddled by the fact that we had not found a way to deal with Ottawa, that we were looking for a new way, looking for a new procedure to deal with Ottawa to convince them of the fact that we needed more monies here in this Province. Now, I would suggest to him, that one of the problems we faced is that his government - he mentioned that we were here for fourteen years and had not found a way. One of the things that we did not find very helpful was that his government, after seventeen years in office, left us no successful formula. They did not leave us a successful formula for dealing with Ottawa.

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, to a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, the member seems to have a problem. He is always on his feet going back to the past, talking about my government - I was not around back seventeen years ago with respect to politics - saying that we did not leave a process for him. He is going back seventeen years. I would like to ask the member: What about the Liberal government that was in power twenty-three years before that and the mess they left for that Administration.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, going back in history is, for the hon. member, very selective. He only wants to go back in history when it suits his purposes. When one starts going back in history, one had better be prepared to go back in history.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, his government certainly did not leave us any successful formula to follow in dealing with the federal government. We acknowledge that it is a difficult situation, a difficult circumstance, and it calls for hard work, and we will persist to ensure that the federal government understands its obligations to the people of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about Supplementary Supply and the Auditor General's report. There is not a more sought after, there is not a more yearned for, document by the Opposition than is the Auditor General's report. They cannot wait for it to come down every year. I sat in the Opposition, too, and I rather liked it. Everybody likes the Auditor General's report. Everybody likes it because, if nobody else can find anything wrong with a government, if not a single person in the universe can find one single thing wrong with a government, they cannot find one single thing a government is doing wrong, wait for the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Chairman, I advise all hon. members to look at all of the reports issued in Canada today by the Auditor Generals, and the oppositions in every one of those provinces just look forward to it, just yearn for it. They cannot wait for it. Even though there might not be one single item that people know out there that government can be accused of for doing something incorrectly, but rest assured, when the Auditor General's report comes, there will be some things, there will be some fodder for the Opposition.

Mr. Chair, that is the role of the Auditor General, the watchdog of government, to hold government accountable, to make sure that they make certain expenditures followed by prescribed methods.

The Auditor General expects perfection. It expects the government, every agency, to spend their money according to certain prescribed methods. Sometimes, governments have to make decisions, have to make difficult decisions that somehow have to avert, have to go outside the prescribed regulations to meet the conditions, and we do that by a system called special warrants.

Mr. Chair, one thing is assured: that this government has reduced substantially the occasions when they have used special warrants. I have been in this House when they have exceeded forty. We are dealing with and talking about nine special warrants. Nine special warrants.

What the Opposition conveniently ignore is that the Auditor General has stated, or the Financial Act states, that a special warrant, in order to be issued, must be for a matter of some urgency. It must be urgent. I would advance, Madam Chair, that urgency is something like beauty. It is in the eyes of the beholder. There is no universal definition of urgency. There is no one definition of urgency that we all agree to here today. I could outline a number of circumstances, events and eventualities, and ask hon. members whether they were urgent, and I would be awfully surprised if we got unanimity among the events listed by members, that they would call them all urgent. There are lots of things people tell me that are urgent that I do not consider urgent, and I am sure vice versa, there are things that I consider urgent that other people do not consider urgent. Governments are in that position.

The government, Madam Chair, finds itself in that position many times, making the decision between various eventualities that are considered urgent by this organization, urgent by this agency of government, urgent by this institution, and we have to make those decisions, and it is in the collective wisdom of government that we make the definition that this item is urgent.

The Auditor General has said the items to which he refers, they were not urgent in his opinion, and that is the operative expression in dealing with this, that the Auditor General has said that it is, in his opinion - acknowledging the fact that everybody does not consider urgency the same, that there are different versions, different definitions. People consider one incident to be urgent while somebody else does not.

Government has to look at those situations to determine whether, in this circumstance, this was urgent, whether, in other circumstance, another matter was urgent, and these are the decisions we have to make. As I have said, in the collective wisdom of government, all of these special warrants met the requirement of being urgent - every one of them, Madam Chair - and met all of the requirements in terms of bringing them before this House.

The hon. the Minister of Finance stated categorically and emphatically that every warrant alluded to here was done properly, was done correctly, and I think this House should accept that explanation, should accept the explanation by the hon. the Minister of Finance, that they were presented here, and the Auditor General is right, in his opinion - in his opinion.

If I were doing the report, I may have said so as well, because I am looking at things rather objectively in the definition of urgency. That is the operative word, Madam Chair, for people to wrap their heads around, what is urgent, and knowing that the meaning would vary from person to person, from circumstance to circumstance, and, in the Auditor General's opinion - and that is all it is, his opinion - that it was not urgent.

In the opinion of government it was urgent, and that is where the case rests. We did it believing that they were urgent and the institutions for whom we issued these special warrants, I am sure that every one of these believe that their case was urgent and they thank the government for having delivered for them.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to make these few remarks and hope that hon. members will soon pass this bill, and agree with us that all of these special warrants were indeed properly done, properly issued, and that they were urgent.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Listening this afternoon and thinking about what my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, has said about the Financial Administration Act, section 28, subsections (2) and (3), and I listened to what was said a few days ago in this debate when we debated whether or not what the Auditor General determines to be a lack of urgency is indeed the fact.

We on this side happen to believe that the Auditor General is an impartial person, a person who is mandated to look at things not from the coloured eyes of a government or from an opposition, but to look at the facts as they are presented and to say on balance what is the truth, what is the honest interpretation that I can put on this particular piece of legislation, and how can I put the government's actions into some kind of focus? How can I relate what the Financial Administration Act requires the government to do and what the government has done? In this particular case, we see there is a substantial variance.

I listened this afternoon as my colleague gave the dictionary definition of the word contravene. It means to be opposed to. It means to be counter to. It means to be in violation of. It means to be up against something. So, what the Auditor General is saying is that the actions of this government on special warrants is contrary to, is opposed to, goes against, is in opposition to, the requirements of the law. Now, I do not know how you can interpret that to say the law has not been broken.

Here is an independent officer of this House, an independent officer of the people of this Province, who has said, on the information put before him, that this government has failed, they have been weighed in the balances, as they say in the Bible, and they have been found wanting because they do not have, in law, the authority to do that which they have done, and what they have done is not in keeping with the standards of the law.

Now, Madam Chair, let me refer back to the Speech from the Throne, March 19, 2002. I want to go to page 5, because this is all about accountability. In that particular Speech from the Throne the Lieutenant-Governor, reading it on behalf of this government, said, "...My Government's commitment to a greater level of openness and accountability." Then it said, "The priority My Government has placed on this Bill reflects the hallmark of this administration." - talking about the new Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Then they talked about, they want to promote real accountability, "Ensuring real accountability to the people of this province is the foundation from which My Government intends to act in all areas."

How can the Premier and the Cabinet and the government backbenchers direct the Lieutenant-Governor to read into the record this statement that I have just read, and I will read again, and then say that they haven't broken the law as regards to special warrants. It says, "Ensuring real accountability to the people of this province is the foundation from which My Government intends to act in all areas." Well, the Auditor General disagrees. The Auditor General says, no, you have not measured up. You have not abided by the laws that you should be governing by. The Financial Administration Act has been broken.

Let me just note, as well, because in the Auditor General's report tabled today, as in the last year's report, the first section of this report talks about Framework of Accountability. There is a whole detailed section. The same kind of section appeared in last year's report. There are multiple pages here. If I had the hour-and-a-half it would take, I would be able to read through parts of it. Part of that accountability deals with special warrants. That is only part of the accountability process. However, let me read what the Auditor General says on accountability for this Province. He says, and I am reading from Page 7, "While other jurisdictions..." in Canada "...have been developing and implementing ways to modernize and improve their performance reporting, as far as reporting information to the House of Assembly is concerned, this Province..." - Newfoundland and Labrador - "...is now further behind than it was in the 1980's and early 1990's, when some departments were preparing and tabling some form of annual report in the House of Assembly."

In other words, the Auditor General says, in terms of an accountability process, we are further behind now in 2002 than we were in the 1980s and in the 1990s. This is the judgement of the Auditor General. It is not the voice of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is not the voice of the New Democratic Party. It is not the voice of the Liberal government. It is the voice of the Auditor General, the independent arbitrator of the processes that we govern ourselves by in this Province.

While it might be nice for the Government House Leader to stand a few moments ago and say that the Auditor General's job is to kind of pick holes, in fact I was rather surprised that the Government House Leader would present the Auditor General's role in such a negative light, but certainly that was the interpretation, that the Auditor General's job was to come out and pick holes in what the government does. Not at all. The government knows, and the Government House Leader knows, that the Auditor General's role is to look at what government does, to look at the enabling legislation, and see if the government performed according to what it is supposed to perform according to the laws of the Province and decisions made in this House.

For example, the Auditor General talks about Crown corporations making reports to the House of Assembly. Do you know that seventeen Crown corporations have been created without enabling legislation passed in this House? Seventeen! Seventeen Crown corporations and agencies have been created and there is no legislative framework presented to this House in order to give them the authority that they have.

Madam Chair, I say to you, when we stand and we present what the Auditor General is saying, we are presenting the voice of the only independent arbitrator of decision-making that can be available to us. The role of the Auditor General is to look at the legislation, to present an independent voice, and the Government House Leader says, no, we should ignore it. He kind of presented it in a very negative light. I was very surprised at that, because we know, for example - what does the Auditor General say on page 9? He says, "There is still no legislative requirement for all Crown agencies and Memorial University of Newfoundland to table accountability reports in the House of Assembly." As a matter of fact, the Auditor General is very direct. In this Province, we do not have reports coming to the House of Assembly.

If you look carefully at the Auditor General's report, pages 13 and 14, there is a comparison between accountability legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador and accountability legislation in other provinces. In fact, all ten provinces are listed.

In British Columbia, they have the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. In Alberta, there is The Government Accountability Act. In Saskatchewan, there is The Government Organization Act. In Newfoundland and Labrador, what does the Auditor General say compares us to these other jurisdictions? I read, "There is no general or umbrella legislation." - in Newfoundland and Labrador that compares to these particular kinds of legislation in the other provinces. In other words, we are behind the rest of Canada in terms of the accountability process.

In spite of what the Lieutenant-Governor read in March, in spite of what the Premier promised and his government promised, we are still far behind. That is why you can have special warrants issued that do not meet the requirements of section 28.(2) and 28.(3 of the Financial Administration Act. That is why this government, in spite of always spending the last number of days on this issue, they tend to ignore. That is why the Government House Leader stood in his place a few moments ago and spoke in rather dismissal of the Auditor General's Report, almost as if we should just table it and forget about it. That is not the case. The Auditor General passed an indictment on this particular government. The Auditor General said: This government does not measure up to the standards that we should expect, particularly from a government, which a few months ago in the Throne Speech, was promising all kinds of changes. These changes have not occurred.

If you read the Auditor General's Report and the whole section of Framework for Accountability, we find out, in this province we are far, far behind other provinces in terms of where we should be going, particularly as it relates to having a legislative framework that will make sure that all crown agencies, all government departments, operate within a requirement to make reports on a regular basis to the House of Assembly.

As a matter of fact, the Auditor General indicates in the report that only a very small number of Crown agencies make reports to this House, and only a very small bit of the $4 billion in budget allocation ever comes back to this House, by way of having to report back on the way in which the money is spent. We operate on the fundamental principle, if Crown agencies take the public's money, they should be publicly accountable for the spending of that money. If you do not want the taxpayers' money, therefore do not expect to be asked to report on it, but if you want the taxpayers' money, if you want to access the public purse, therefore expect to be accountable. That is what the Auditor General says. That is the standard we should be applying in this House and that is the standard that should apply in our Province.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased today to stand and make a few comments on Bill 8 and join with colleagues on both sides of the House. It is interesting that today, as we debate this piece of legislation here in the House, that we were presented with the Auditor General's Report. I will do, as some of my colleagues have done here in the past little while - the Auditor General's Report gives us a picture I guess, Madam Chair, of government's activities in the last fiscal year. Certainly, when we look at this report today, and hopefully over the next few days, we will see that the picture is very dismal indeed in regards to the performance of this government.

Madam Chair, I would like to touch on a couple of things, if I could, as some of the members have already done, in regard to the Financial Administration Act and the contravention of that act, time and time again, in regard to special warrants. These are not the words, as some members opposite have tried to put across today, of the Member for Ferryland, the Finance critic. These are not the words of any member here in the House. These are the words of an independent person, Madam Chair, an Officer of the House of Assembly, who goes about his business independent of all the people in this House and speaks facts, does not speak the misrepresentation of facts. He goes into different departments of government, Madam Chair.

If I could just touch on the special warrants for a minute, just to look at the comments of the Auditor General, because I think they are important to get the message across here today, in relation to a loan bill of any amount of money that we allow this government to have.

Under special warrants, Madam Chair, in the Auditor General's Report, the Department of Education - not to belabour the point as some of my colleagues have touched on it. I just want to touch on what the comments are of the Auditor General. The last comment, in regard to the Department of Education and a special warrant for $10.4 million, the Auditor General writes: "Therefore, the $4 million portion of the special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

Madam Chair, then he goes on to the Department of Health and Community Services where we had a special warrant put forward on 27 March 2002. What does the Auditor General say about that special warrant. "Therefore, this special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

Then we move on, again, to another special warrant for the Department of Health and Community Services. On the same date March 27, 2002, what does the Auditor General say about that special warrant? "Therefore, this special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

We move on down to the Department of Justice, Madam Chair. On March 15, a special warrant for $720,000 for the Supreme Court House. I would just like to elaborate on this one a little bit because I just saw the Government House Leader stand on his feet and tell us that some people may think urgent is urgent while others may not think it is urgent at the time, and it is how you look at something. Well, Madam Chair, we have no problem on this side of the House, if there is an urgent matter in this Province, such as a forest fire in July or a flood. We had a situation out in my own district a few years ago, 1999, Hurricane Gert, that caused tremendous damage in the Community of St. Bride's, as an example. Sometimes Municipal Affairs may have to step in or some other department of government has to step in with what is deemed to be urgent.

I ask you in this House, today, Madam Chair, I ask all members of the House and I ask the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are listening to us, ask yourselves: Is this urgent? "The Department of Justice - On 15 March, 2002, the Department received a special warrant in the amount of $720,000 for Supreme Court for the purchase of digital court recording equipment for the various courtrooms." Urgent? I say not, Madam Chair. Court recording equipment for the various courtrooms - "The courts were using the existing equipment at that time and the purchase of replacement equipment, while important, was not an urgency in relation to court operations." These were the words of the Auditor General himself. They were not an urgency. "Therefore, the special warrant did not comply with the Financial Administration Act."

These are just four examples I just stated there, Madam Chair, of where the government broke their own law. Then we flip back a few pages and we go to page 3 of the Auditor General's Report, and we hear in relation to the Public Tender Act, Madam Chair. Once again the Auditor General states, "The Public Tender Act outlines the rules that Government departments and most Crown agencies have to comply with in the acquisitions of goods and services. The Act is intended to provide a level playing field for individuals and companies wanting to do business with Government."

Madam Chair, the Public Tender Act was brought in through legislation in this House when the Tories were in government, because they wanted to create a playing field. As the Auditor General says, "The Act was intended to create a level playing field for individuals and companies wanting to do business with Government." What does the Auditor General say about what this government has done with the Public Tender Act? They say, "As in other years, my Office continues to identify instances where Government and its agencies contravened the Public Tender Act." Then they go through examples: Straits of Belle Isle Marine Services; the Multi-Material Stewardship Board; the Marble Mountain Development Corporation, and the list goes on and on and on in relation to contravening the Public Tender Act, Madam Chair.

These are concerns that we have on this side of the House. We have legislation here that we are all supposed to abide by and the ministers of different departments of government are not abiding by that legislation and are breaking their own laws. Then we go out into the public and say to people: Follow follow the laws of the land, follow the laws that are laid down through the House of Assembly, and we find that government breaks its own laws, how do we then turn around and ask people to follow laws, Madam Chair? That is the concern that we have on this side of the House.

Then we go over to page 66, which I found astounding, and we have only had this a few hours, Madam Chair. We go over to page 66 and there were some major concerns put forward by the Auditor General in relation to the deficit of school boards in this Province. I think it is interesting that we put forward the amount and at the end of this year we are looking at a $100 million deficit of school boards in this Province. A $100 million deficit that this government refuses to be part of their annual budget and puts it off to the side as if it is not even there - that it is not even there - that is not part of the annual budget, but it is part of the annual budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, boy. (Inaudible)..

MR. MANNING: No, I will not sit down, I say to the member. I will not sit down. I say that he should get up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say that you should get up on your feet and try to defend what the Auditor General has put forward here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: You cannot defend breaking the Financial Administration Act. You cannot defend breaking the Public Tender Act. You cannot defend breaking every act, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The law of the land - you cannot defend it as a government, Madam Chair, I say to the member opposite. You cannot defend it. Get up on your feet.

Then we have this government who continues to break their own laws, turn around and say to the Auditor General, when he put forward concerns of the deficit of school boards in this Province - this is in relation to school boards. This has nothing to do with the Financial Administration Act. This has nothing to do with the Public Tender Act. This has to do with the Schools Act; what they say about the Schools Act. The government says, "We concur with this observation. This issue is an ongoing concern for the Department." It is an ongoing concern for the department that the school boards are out there and may be breaking some laws, Madam Chair. "It is our intention to continue to closely monitor the situation to ensure that budget submissions, etc. are received and administered in compliance with governing legislation."

Here they are, the government writes back to the Auditor General and says we are going to make sure that the school boards receive and administer in compliance with governing legislation. Then they are out here breaking the Financial Administration Act, breaking the Public Tender Act, and they are going out and telling the school boards, you cannot break the law. Sure, you are breaking it yourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Therefore, we have a situation here where we have -

MR. E. BYRNE: One law for the common man and another for the king.

MR. MANNING: Yes, as my colleague from Kilbride said: One law for the common man and another for the king. Madam Chair, it is very, very interesting.

Madam Chair, the Auditor General's report, as I said, we have only had it in our hands for a couple of hours and we have put forward, as many colleagues have put forward, the concerns on this side of the House and, I am sure, the concerns of the people in the Province, because we are all in this House to ensure that the people's money is spent wisely and accounted for. Time and time again through this document we see the accountability, Madam Chair, or the lack of accountability, of this government. Time and time again, we see it here.

Then we go to page 167 _ as I said, if we had to have a few days to have a look at this - it has to do with hospital boards in the Province. I just spoke about the ballooning deficit that we see with the school boards, $100 million this year.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Madam Chair, just to finish up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave granted.

MR. MANNING: The financial position of eight hospital boards is going to cost $366 million this year, $366 million plus one hundred from the school boards, and this government still says that they are not breaking the law. Well, you are breaking the law!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say to the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's that he truly does not know when he is finished. He has had a couple of interventions in his political career. He did not think he was finished, but the people down in his district were finished with him. I say to the hon. member, he should be very careful about talking about beginning and finishing, and he should make sure that he is with the people of the Province and with the people of his district with respect to what the real debate should be about in this House today, Madam Chair, because we are essentially wasting time in a sense in that we all acknowledge that in all of this debate about the Auditor General's report there is not one iota of a suggestion that we, in any way, have improperly spent one cent of the taxpayers' money. We have accounted for every single cent of the taxpayers' money and we are happy to do so.

MR. MANNING: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

AN HON. MEMBER: No one interrupted you.

MR. MANNING: No, because you didn't have the guts to get up on your feet. That is not my problem.

Madam Chair, I just heard the minister that time say we are wasting our time here in the House today. We are talking on Bill 8, a loan of $200 million to give to a government that does not follow their own laws. I think it is a very important matter that we are talking about. Would you give a dollar to anybody that is not going to spend it wisely? That is the question we are asking here today. Most importantly, we are asking that government follow its own law. That is what we are raising, the concerns here today. That is the issue here today. It is not an issue about politics. The issue today is, follow your own laws.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand that the hon. member does not want to hear me speak on this issue, but I will pick up exactly where he left off, on page 167, because it is an appropriate place to be having a discussion if we are going to be debating the expenditures of this Province.

The hon. member sort of makes a speech that suggests that either the hospital boards do not know what they are doing or else they are doing something inappropriate with the money that they have been given. I say to the hon. member that he should be up on his feet applauding the management and the effort being put forward by all of our hospital and health care boards in trying to deliver a very essential public service to the people of this Province.

The issue that we really need to be having a debate about, Madam Chair, is this: it is the issue of, where are we going to get the revenues in this Province to continue to provide the public services that we need? I suggest to the people of the Province that we, as government, have embarked upon, we are wedded to, we are engaged in, a program, a plan, of attempting to grow the economy of this Province so that we will have the revenues to do the things that need to be done in health care and education and in other areas.

Let me just make reference, again, to make the point - not something that we have not said before, not something that I have not said in this House before. Let me make the point again. That is why, as a government, we have been so singularly focused upon developing the resources that we have in this Province so that we can provide tax revenues to run health care and run education and provide the other services.

If the hon. member who just spoke had his way, based on the position of his party, for major projects such as Voisey's Bay, we would today not be enjoying the prospect of that project going forward for the benefit of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I said in my speech in the Voisey's Bay debate that there are two visions in this Province. There is a forward-looking vision of development so that we can grow our economy and support ourselves in providing public service, or there is the vision of looking in the rear-view mirror, wrapping oneself in tinfoil, praying that lightening does not strike, and saying we do nothing for fear of doing it wrong.

Madam Chair, I say that the people of this Province expect better, by way of public policy, from their politicians. They expect better than status quo. They expect and they require and they deserve better than, do nothing, sit on your hands and wait for somebody else to do it for you. We, as a people in this Province, I believe, understand that if we are to rise above where we are in our fiscal circumstance, and being able to provide more and better services to our people, that we have to grow our economy and that is what our agenda, as a government, is all about. That is why we are attempting to do good deal after good deal after good deal, so that we can move our economy forward. That is why we invested-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - our energy and some of our resources in moving forward the three oil projects that are either in production or will soon be in production in the offshore. That is why we spent some money on lawyers and consultants and researchers and took our case to an independent tribunal, because we felt that we had a case to put forward with respect to boundaries disputes with Nova Scotia on the offshore resources under the seabed, and that is why we won that decision and have, for our management purposes, forevermore, all of the resources that are in the Laurentian Basin or at least 70 per cent or 80 per cent of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: That is why, Madam Chair, we are interested in trying to move forward a deal on an issue as tangly, I would say, and as controversial and as difficult as the Lower Churchill Falls development. We need to move forward, Madam Chair, with respect to our agenda.

Now the hon. the Finance critic - I want people to hear this - the hon. the Finance critic stands in his place day after day and he applauds when the pronouncement comes down, we will never develop the Lower Churchill unless we get the Upper Churchill open. Let me quote the hon. the former Leader of the Opposition. On October 16, 1996, with respect to the Lower Churchill development, the Leader of the Opposition said this: Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Loyola Sullivan says Tuesday that Tobin should concentrate his efforts on negotiating a deal on the Lower Churchill and forget about the Upper Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I also said - and he should read all of my statements in 1996 - we should not be tied to negotiations with Quebec. We should look at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what I said. In fact, I said: Why are we dealing with Quebec? I said: Why don't we deal with the power authority of the State of New York, and deal with other people and strike an independent deal. That is what I said. Half the story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me oblige the hon. member by reading all that he said -

MR. SULLIVAN: We could have reached energy policy.

MR. MATTHEWS: - by stating all that he said. He said -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

- and forget about the Upper Churchill because Bouchard has already stated he is not interested in renegotiating the contract on the Upper Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Chair, the hon. member was up the other day talking about signs on hinges on the Witless Bay Line. No member knows more about hinges than this member because he swings in the wind every day. He has flip-flopped over the top. He actually does know more about hinges than I believe anybody that operated, or would ever operate, any hardware store in the country.

So I say, Madam Chair, the real debate today should be about a forward looking vision for economic development in the Province, not looking back into the rearview mirror to see what happened or did not happen in the past, but moving forward with confidence that we can do right by the people of the Province in growing our economy and being able to provide health care services, education services and all of the other public services that we have been elected to provide, and we expect so to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Yes, there is nothing worse than telling half the story. The reason why I said we should not get redress on the Upper Churchill is because we should not be negotiating with Quebec. How can you get redress? That is the story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked questions in this House of Assembly of Premier Brian Tobin, and asked that very question: Why? It might not have been that day, but you go back in the records of Hansard and you will see. How can you get redress on the Upper Churchill if you are dealing with somebody else? That is the gist of my thought.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I might add, we released an energy policy and we asked where this government's energy policy is. We are still waiting for that policy. We have not seen it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair, he can read and you can take the night to read it. In fact, I have done releases and packages on the Churchill. I first raised it in 1996-1997. Why are we looking at 92(a) of the Constitution? He will find that, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I also said, as Leader of the Opposition: Why don't we exercise 92(a)? There is a right of taxation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I hope he will read further tomorrow and find that.

I indicated, since that, we have asked the question - the former Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Kilbride, asked the question: Did we give away the right of taxation? Did we give away a chance to tax? I have been told by lawyers, I have told by very knowledgeable lawyers, in fact, one who was employed, I understood, contract to the government, a lawyer who indicated that we can tax on the Upper Churchill provided the tax is not discriminatory, and it could also have to tax people in this Province as well as Quebec. It would not be discriminatory under 92(a) of the Constitution.

We could not charge Quebec a tax on electricity and not charge ourselves and expect to recover it because that would be deemed to be improper and unfair in the distribution of taxes. We could charge ourselves and then we could look at other areas of expenditure to give the public a break, another taxation to make up for it. That could be done properly. It is our decision to do that. There is nothing worst than standing here, going back through the pages of history and putting someone in a context that is not completely accurate. That is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: People go back and dig out things that are false. To be honest with you, I always thought the Minister of Mines and Energy was the one who did appropriate research. Now I can see why they are hopping him around from department to department. We drove him out of health, we drove him out of Finance. Now, he is in Mines and Energy and he wants to give away the Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He wants to give away the Lower Churchill. That is what he wants to do. Give away Voisey's Bay. God help us! The longer that minister is there, the more damage he is going to do to this Province. He talks about the Auditor General and what the Auditor General is telling us. He presided over a government that in three short years added $1 billion to the debt of this Province. That will be his legacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: His legacy to our grandchildren will be a billion extra in debt. He is not finished yet, I understand. He wants to stay for another while. He wants to inflect more damage on future generations in this Province. That is what he wants to do.

I know it is 5:30 p.m. and I do not know if you want to adjourn and come back at 7:00 p.m. You have that option. I am not sure what the House Leaders want to do. Do you want me to keep going?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I had intended, I might add, to clue up my comments a hour ago, but the minister thought he had a little gold mine there. He thought he had made a discovery. A discovery, I can tell you, was completely shallow and unfounded.

In fact, Minister, I went on to say that under FERA in the United States, and the deregulation of industry, I went on to say, in a series of questions over a period of time, that Quebec will have to allow us wielding rights because of the Free Trade Agreement that his colleagues opposed. His colleagues opposed it immensely, and we opened up the doors. There has to be a reciprocal wielding of rights between Canada and the United States. That is the distortion that this government is trying, the same distortion they are trying here in the Financial Administration Act by taking $33.1 million and manipulating it to get the result they want.

This Auditor General has said it, and the previous Auditor General has said it year after year after year. How often, Madam Chairperson, do you have to tell this government something before it sinks in? The Auditor General told them last year and the year before and the year before. This government just cannot learn. They cannot understand what it means to contravene an act. They think contravening an act is good. They think it is good. They do not think it is breaking the law, they said. We are not breaking the law.

If this government does not know the difference between breaking the law and contravening the act, I am just probably wasting my time trying to convince them. It is just as good to get out of here and - do you know what Mark Twain said? Mark Twain said, in 1866 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mark Twain said: No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the Legislature is in session.

That is what Mark Twain said. Do you know what Edward Langley said? "What this country needs is more unemployed politicians." That is what he said. You could take some of these words to heart. I am not sure if I want to tell you what Ronald Reagan said. Maybe I will tell you what Ronald Reagan said. Ronald Reagan said, "The Government is like a baby's alimentary canal..." -

MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, if the country needs more unemployed politicians, I ask the hon. member, is he prepared to go first?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you prepared to go first?

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was going to tell him what I think of government. In the words of Ronald Reagan. "The Government is like a baby's alimentary canal..." -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't like to hear the quotes of famous politicians.

He said, "The Government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite on one end and no responsibility at the other."

That is what he said about government. That makes a lot of sense.

I think I will just end with a particular quote by - I will use this one - Will Rogers. Will Rogers said, "I don't make jokes. I just watch government and report the facts."

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible). Oh, I am sorry.

"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, 2002, the sum of $51,016,800."

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried

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, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 8)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

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

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 8, be introduced and read a first time.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board 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 31,2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To the Public Service," carried. (Bill 8)

On motion, Bill 8 read a first, second, and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with members opposite. I ask permission to introduce a Private Member's Motion for tomorrow and I will ask the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island - he is the person who is going to present the motion - to present his motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: WHEREAS the ferry service provided by Marine Atlantic to this Province is guaranteed in the Constitution of Canada; and

WHEREAS the provision of the quality and affordable service has a major impact on the economy of this Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly opposes the recently announced fare increases to the traveling public and the transportation industry; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the federal government through Marine Atlantic to provide the additional subsidy necessary to provide a quality and affordable ferry service to this Province.

Thank you, for the leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, being that we are the only ones left in the building, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.