The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome some thirty Grade 6 students from St. Bonaventure's College in the District of St. John's East, with their teachers: Linda Little, Mr. Bouillie, and chaperones: Ms Colleen Simms, Mr. Breen, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Fagan, Ms Murphy and Dr. Treslan.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin Statements by Members the Speaker would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader on Thursday, May 13.

The Opposition House Leader raised a point of order with regard to a comment made by the Minister of Environment and Conservation in Question Period. Specifically, the Opposition House Leader questioned the use of the word ‘hypocritical'. The Chair took the matter under advisement at that time. After consultation with the Table Officers and a review of Hansard, the Speaker is now ready to make a ruling.

Hansard shows that the minister said, "I find that question very hypocritical." The Chair has reviewed the House of Commons debates where the words ‘hypocrite' and ‘hypocritical' have been ruled unparliamentary. In all instances, the reference was made to an individual member rather than a reflection on the issue or question. Thus, while the Chair does not condone or encourage the use of such words, the Chair rules that in this instance the reference was made to a question rather than to the member himself. Thus there is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by the following members: The Member for Port de Grave, the Member for Gander, the Member for Grand Bank, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and the Member for Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MS JONES: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege has been raised by the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the member.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to stand in this House today to raise a point of privilege. Last week I responded to information in a document from Executive Council that I had received on May 7, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Opposition requested information under the Freedom of Information Act on April 1, and we received it a month later. We assumed we received this information after government had very carefully considered the details of the information, what they were releasing to the Opposition, to ensure that the information they were giving us was accurate and correct.

Mr. Speaker, last week I raised an issue coming out of that document which pertained to the Department of Government Services and it had to do with driver training examinations. After I raised the issue, and after my colleague, the Member for Labrador West had raised the issue, the minister admitted to me that she was not aware of this decision being taken in her department. She later agreed to reinstate driver examiners for my district, saying that the document had contained false information, I think was the answer that her colleague - not false information but a working document, her acting minister actually said on Thursday.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this week there was an issue with regard to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Again, the information was given to me, through Freedom of Information, in a document prepared by the Executive Council of government. The document clearly stated that the Labrador Transportation Fund, which is a fund that is used to support the travel of students through the High School Athletic Federation from Labrador to the Island, that this fund would be reduced by $10,000 this year over last year.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation says that the information was false, that my statement that I had made was false. Mr. Speaker, I feel that my privileges are violated because I was quoting information that was given to me under the Freedom of Information Act, by the Executive Council of government. It was titled: Budget and Statistics, March 30, 2004. One would assume this was all the information that was coming out of the Budget that was passed down by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board during that time.

Mr. Speaker, if these decisions were not taken by government, they should not have been included in this document. I am really perturbed by the fact that false information is part of a request under Freedom of Information, because when you ask for a request under Freedom of Information you expect it to be truthful, to be accurate and to have been scrutinized very carefully by government before it was released. Obviously, that was not the case, or it seems it was not the case. I feel that either government or Executive Council have certainly breached the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, what disturbed me, I think even more, was that I was quoting from a document given to me by government, and I had the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in the public saying that I was giving false information to the public, that I was giving inaccurate information to the public, when all I was doing was quoting from his own document.

Mr. Speaker, I have a serious problem with that. This morning, I had a call from the Deputy Minister of Tourism, who called to apologize to me because the department had given false information to Executive Council, who in turn gave false information to the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, when the deputy minister can call you up and apologize, and tell you that he is calling to eat crow, and sorrily regrets that this happened, and the minister does not have the decency to make a phone call to explain to me that his department had given out false information, but he is prepared to go out in the public and accuse me of rendering false information and inaccurate information, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. I certainly feel that my privileges as an Opposition member, as an MHA in this House, have been breached and publicly discredited, I might say to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that it was not the intention of government to discredit my character in the way that they have, by two ministers in two separate departments, based on information that was given to me by them after careful ‘scrutinization' by them.

Mr. Speaker, I expect a ruling from yourself on this matter. It has happened two weeks in a row and I do expect a ruling, because I think there is a breach under the Freedom of Information Act by government or by Executive Council; and I also, Mr. Speaker, am asking for an apology from the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who issued that press release knowing full well that was not the case, even when his deputy minister called me to explain that it was not the case, and to apologize for giving false information from the Department of Tourism to Executive Council, and in turn to myself.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of privilege, this issue was raised last week, on Thursday, by the Leader of the Opposition, who raised it again in the context of the same information that was released by government, but for the specific issue of the driver examiner. As you recall, the Government House Leader, at that time, undertook to do some background checks and get back to us.

We realize that he had to be absent today, but again I would strongly advise the Chair that this is one and the same in terms of issues. It concerns the same package of information that the government has released. This is indeed a very serious issue that members over on this side, following the law, following the Freedom of Information Act, request information, rely upon that information which was given to them by the Clerk of the Executive Council, only to have Ministers of the Crown stand and say that it is either not final documents or, as in the case of the Minister of Tourism, outright accuse the Member for Cartwright of having misled and lied to the public, when they themselves know they prepared the information, or their bureaucratic staff did, they released the information to the Opposition, and it is a breach of our privileges if we cannot stand and rely upon information that the government releases to us under a legal procedure such as the Freedom of Information.

We encourage the Chair to consider both of these circumstances together. It is indeed a very serious issue and is definitely, without question, a breach of the members' privileges if we cannot rely upon the information being provided to us.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just let me say a couple of things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Opposition House Leader is correct. I think the Government House Leader gave an undertaking to the Opposition, which was, I believe, concurred on by the Opposition on Thursday, that he was seeking more detail here. Unfortunately, he had to be absent today but he undertook to provide that detail to the House tomorrow - which, of course, will happen.

The second thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is the reference by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I think most people know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has a fairly serious medical problem. He is not here today, for the same reason, and was not in a position to call the hon. member to make any apologies to her, as I am sure he would do, because it is in his character to do, but the members know that he had to seek medical attention outside the Province for some number of days, I believe, only a few weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, if an inquiry was made, the information could be provided.

He also, Mr. Speaker, has to travel outside the Province again today for the completion of those medical procedures. I want that to be on the public record, in the context of why the deputy minister - and it was in that context that the deputy minister phoned the hon. member today, Mr. Speaker, and apologized. The deputy minister fully admitted that the department had, in fact, provided inaccurate information to Executive Council, and took the responsibility for providing that inaccurate information, and apologized to the hon. member for any inconvenience or hurt feelings or whatever transpired as a result of this. We all do that. It is unfortunate, but I think it is like the - I do not know if it was the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition House Leader said last week: Look, if a mistake has been made, admit that the mistake is made, apologize for it and get on with it. That is exactly what the deputy minister did.

In terms of a point of privilege, Your Honour, I would have to submit to you that I do not think this is a point of privilege. It might be a point that there is a disagreement between members on information, whether it is accurate information, how the information got disseminated and things of that nature, but in terms of the privileges of any member of this Legislature being violated, I do not think that is the case and I would submit to Your Honour that there is not a prima facie case of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: As hon members have mentioned, an issue similar to this was raised on Thursday afternoon, May 13, and the Chair will consider both matters at the same time. However, there was also an agreement between the two House Leaders that we would wait until after there had been a further submission made by the Government House Leader, which will occur, I understand, tomorrow. This matter can then be adjudicated and the Chair will then be in a position to make a ruling. In fairness to the Government House Leader, I do believe that it would be worth a courtesy and an expectation that we would wait until he returns to the House tomorrow before we would have any further consideration of this matter.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave on Statements by Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to recognize the Church Lads Brigade or more commonly known as the CLB of Bay Roberts on their ninetieth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, the CLB is a tremendous organization which helps children and teenagers build strong community involvement. It assists many in getting involved with the cadet movement and giving all children an opportunity to participate, no matter what their economic background may be. Some of the CLB's alumni include Hockey Night in Canada's Bob Cole, former NHL player Doug Grant, and former Premier and Father of Confederation Joseph R. Smallwood.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the opportunity to participate in the CLB's ceremonies with the Bay Roberts Branch. On Thursday evening, I attended their banquet which honoured the hard work and dedication of all involved with the CLB in that area. The Bay Roberts and the St. John's battalions teamed together for events on Saturday and Sunday with a parade and a church service held to commemorate their ninetieth anniversary.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending congratulations to the Bay Roberts chapter of the CLB on their ninetieth anniversary and thanks to all volunteers involved with the successful operation of this very much community-minded organization.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before the House, to bring to your attention the accomplishments of a young filmmaker from the District of Gander.

A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Brad Peyton was one of the nominees in the documentary and short film category for the Genie Awards.

This is not the first time that Mr. Peyton's film has gained attention. Earlier this year, his film gained international praise at the Nodance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. It was at this festival that he won the Grand Jury Award for short film.

Mr. Speaker, I am highlighting Mr. Peyton's accomplishments today as a reminder to all of us of the talent that abounds not only in my District of Gander but also in Newfoundland and Labrador. The nominating committee of The Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television recognized that talent when they nominated Mr. Peyton's film for the 2004 Genie Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in congratulating Mr. Brad Peyton of Gander for his dedicated hard work that led to the honour of being nominated for this award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Tom Tarrant of St. Lawrence who has attained one of the highest ranks in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Colonel Tarrant has served as Colonel for the past ten years with various postings throughout Canada and abroad. Colonel Tarrant was on the Burin Peninsula this month acting as chief reviewing officer for the annual inspections for the St. Lawrence 269 Endeavor and the Lawn 237 Truxtun Corps. A duty he also performed five years ago.

Colonel Tarrant joined the Armed Forces in August 1971. He graduated from Memorial University in 1976 and was commissioned into the Royal Canadian Regiment to start his first regimental tour of duty with the 2^nd Battalion in Gagetown, New Brunswick. He has filled three tours of duty in Germany.

Colonel Tarrant was promoted to Captain in 1979, Major in 1988, and most recently to Colonel. He has since served as Commanding Officer at Headquarters CFB Petawawa, Ontario and Commander of the 1^st Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment at Petawawa among other staffings. In 2000, Colonel Tarrant was moved to the Directorate of Army Training as a section head and the Deputy Director and during this time, completed a tour of duty with the British led International Military Assistance and Training Team in Sierra Leone, West Africa. Colonel Tarrant is presently Director of Reserves in the Chief of Reserves and Cadets Division at National Defense Headquarters in Ottawa.

Colonel Tarrant is the son of Harry and Elizabeth Tarrant of St. Lawrence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Colonel Tarrant on attaining one of the highest ranks in the Canadian Armed Forces and expressing our thanks for his years of service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring praise to Mrs. Amy Butler of Baine Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, if you want an example of an individual with spirit and determination, Amy is a perfect choice. On Saturday, May 29, Amy will take part in the one kilometer Hip, Hip Hooray Fundraiser Walk around Quidi Vidi Lake. This will be Amy's twelfth year participating in the walk during which time she has raised a total of $21,074. The funds raised in this event go towards orthopaedic surgery and research, an area that appears to be seeing more advances and increasing demands.

Amy herself has been the recipient of both hip and knee replacements and continues to live independently in her own home. Regrettably, during the past month Amy's husband passed away. The two were inseparable, and despite having hip and knee replacements it was a common site in Baine Harbour to see them both aboard their speedboat, either going to or returning from their beloved resettled community of Port Elizabeth. The resettlement program of the late1960s saw Amy, Bill and their children relocate to Baine Harbour, however, Amy and Bill really never did leave their home on Port Elizabeth. They maintained a cabin there and spent many weeks and months on the island that was, and continued to be, their home.

Mr. Speaker, during her seventy-three years, Amy has faced many adversities, yet she has risen above them and has continued to be a spirited individual. Many people from across the District of Burin-Placentia West will also know Amy through her work and commitment to the Hospital Auxiliary, a cause to which she had dedicated much time and effort.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in wishing Amy Butler every success in the Hip, Hip Hooray Walk on May 29, and I wish her every success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sarah Fennell, a native of Plate Cove West in the District of Bonavista South, on being selected recently at Memorial University's "Amazing Student of the Week."

Given that there are over 16,000 students attending the university, Mr. Speaker, this is quite an achievement.

Sarah is a second year Chemistry major and an honour student. She is very active both within the university community and in her own community of Plate Cove West.

While at school, Sarah is quite involved with Student Affairs and the Student Volunteer Bureau, and when she returns home on weekends she volunteers with her church; and, somewhere in her busy schedule, Mr. Speaker, she finds the time to participate in volleyball at the provincial level and to volunteer with patients at the Health Sciences Centre.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah is hoping to be accepted into Memorial University's Pharmacy Program. If her impressive record of academic, athletic and volunteer achievements is any indication, I am certain that Sarah will certainly excel in any field that she enters.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Sarah Fennell and wishing her every success in her future endeavors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to commend the efforts of St. John's Clean and Beautiful and its annual cleanup campaign, Take Pride, Take Action! The campaign officially got underway this past weekend and runs until June 15.

The Take Pride, Take Action campaign encourages neighbourhoods, community groups, organizations, schools, businesses, as well as individuals to participate. Cleanups have included school grounds, parks, playgrounds, rivers, trailways, streets, and forested areas.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of littering, careless waste handling and illegal dumping is more evident after the winter months when the snow is gone. I encourage everyone in the St. John's area to do their part in cleaning up the city. I was pleased to be able to participate recently in a cleanup day in Shea Heights, organized by St. John's Clean and Beautiful and the Shea Heights Community Centre. Over 100 bags of garbage were collected in just a few hours.

St. John's Clean and Beautiful's annual cleanup campaign has been a huge success over the years. Since 1993 there have been more than 800 registered cleanups with over 51,000 volunteers picking up over 600 tonnes of litter and debris, making St. John's a cleaner and more beautiful city. I commend everyone involved with St. John's Clean and Beautiful, especially all of the volunteers, for their dedication to the environment. Indeed, St. John's Clean and Beautiful shares government's commitment to ensuring a cleaner and healthier environment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge all of the towns and groups around the Province who are holding spring cleanup campaigns this year. There are many communities in our Province, Mr. Speaker, who take action to clean up the environment. I encourage everyone to keep up the good work and to continue to take pride in their community. Hats off to our environmental leaders and groups like St. John's Clean and Beautiful. When we each do our part, we show commitment to a healthier, greener environment and help create better communities in which to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the hon. minister for a copy of his statement. Again, I would like to indicate that every day we see ministers getting up in the House and bringing good news items which were part of the Liberal government, the former Liberal government. Again, this is another initiative that started in 1993 under the leadership of the Liberal government. We all realize that in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last number of years people are more and more conscious about our environment. We look at all the volunteer groups that are out around Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the Adopt a Highway Program, the Lions Clubs, the Knights of Columbus, all the various organizations that participate in cleaning up Newfoundland and Labrador. One only would notice ten or fifteen years ago, when you drove across the Province, all you would see would be drink containers, bottles and things, on the side of the road. I must say, it is a pleasure now to drive across Newfoundland and Labrador and see that the sides of our highways are completely clean and free of all containers and garbage.

I want to compliment the department and the people within the department who have taken this great initiative, working towards cleaning up the environment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was listening to the minister talk about all of the cleanups that have taken place: 800 registered cleanups and 51,000 volunteers, since 1993, you would think the place would be clean by now. Yet, we see reports in the paper the other day of car wrecks scattered around the environs of St. John's, and I am sure they exist elsewhere in the Province, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, we certainly congratulate anybody making the effort to clean up, but the problem is that we still have people littering and, despite the remarks of the Member for Bellevue, if you stop long enough at the side of the highway to go anywhere you will find lots of things still there. We really do have - still - an attitude problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: We still have an attitude problem which I think we do have to work on, all members of this House, and young people especially. A new generation, hopefully, will take better care of the environment than our generation has.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, it was my pleasure to welcome 480 of the brightest young scientific minds from across Canada at the opening ceremonies of the Canada Wide Science Fair hosted by Memorial University.

Sponsored by the Youth Science Foundation of Canada, the Canada Wide Science Fair is a prestigious national competition. Each of the young women and men in attendance have earned their place by winning regional science fairs across the country. Over 500,000 students have competed in past months at local fairs throughout Canada, and only one in 1,000 have made it to this week's fair.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that our Province has twenty-four students with a total of nineteen projects registered for this event: five from the Western region, six from Central, and eight representing the Eastern region.

As Minister of Education with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and a former teacher, I am always pleased to be involved in the exciting things that are happening in our education systems nationwide. Science and technology, Mr. Speaker, are integral parts of our society, and therefore, integral parts of our education system.

Developing scientific literacy and stimulating student interest are two key attributes of our new science curricula which have strengthened competitions such as this. Science fairs encourage students to learn through hands-on experiences that build valuable scientific skills. These skills last a lifetime and are often transferable to many other domains.

Mr. Speaker, students of today expect and demand more from their education. They are inquisitive, innovative and determined. We see their desire to understand why or how; we see, particularly through events like the Canada Wide Science Fair, their hopes to make this world better, safer and healthier.

With that said, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was pleased to contribute approximately $45,000 in direct funding and in-kind support to this event.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in applauding everyone involved with the organizing of this event: the teachers, students and chaperones. We also thank the judges who are offering freely of their time and expertise, and the many volunteers who believe in the importance of this event. It is important to single out the event co-chairs, Mr. John Barron and Ms Renee Boyce for their dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate all students who participated in science fairs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador this year, and wish the best of luck to students participating in this week's event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advanced copy. I would like to also commend him for the $45,000 contribution to this fair. It is certainly a worthwhile event. I would also like to congratulate the twenty-four students who are representing our Province. I know that they have worked very hard to get there, but also all of us on this side, and I am sure everyone in the House, would also like to wish our students the best of luck. I am certain they will do well at this fair.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated, in his statement, that students today expect and demand more from their education. I believe they deserve this, but with the cuts to teaching positions and school boards, I think that in the end they will receive less from this government. With fewer teachers and fewer programs, all that many students in this Province, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, can expect in the near future is more Distance Education courses, something that the minister realizes himself is no substitute for having a teacher in the classroom with you.

While I commend him for his contribution to this particular project, I cannot say the same for what he and his government are doing to the education system in our Province this year and in the next four years.

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.

I would just like to say that science fairs, and in particular this one that is being hosted here at Memorial University, are very good for young people. It encourages them to aspire to be involved with technology and not be afraid to get involved in something that is high technology, that requires a bit of imagination and a bit of scientific attitude. It does actually get them closer to the idea that they, too, can participate, as young scientists, in changing our modern world, in creating new products, in finding new discoveries. The level, I am told - I have not been there, but I know that some of the students involved in this have some very advanced and highly intricate designs and experiments that would surprise many, coming from such young people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I do want to encourage all of the young people involved in this. I hope that our young people will do well in this competition, as they do in most competitions nationally and internationally.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleagues of the recent opening of Hope Haven, a new shelter and resource facility for women and children escaping family abuse and violence in Labrador West.

I would also like to give special recognition to the partnerships that went into the creation of this new facility. In particular, the centre received a significant contribution of $625,000 from the Government of Canada, with an additional $112,000 from the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation in collaboration with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There are also many individuals at the community and corporate level who deserve a thank you for their support of this project.

This new shelter allows the Province to better respond to family violence and improve services for women in Labrador. Government was pleased to support a study in 2002, titled: Moving Towards Safety: Responding to Family Violence in Aboriginal and Northern Communities of Labrador, which identified a number of needs for women in Labrador, including better access to shelter, policing and health services.

The need for improvements to the shelter in Labrador West was also recognized in this study. Hope Haven, through its rehabilitation, now has an increased capacity to better meet the needs of women and their children in this region as well as from other parts of Labrador.

Violence prevention is an important goal of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and by working in partnership with regional and community groups, we are undertaking a number of initiatives to advance this work.

This year, for example, the Violence Prevention Initiative will fund six regional co-ordinating committees, a public awareness campaign and training on violence awareness and prevention.

Hope Haven provides a shining example of what can be accomplished when government and the community work together. Congratulations to all who made this important project a reality.

Thank you.

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.

I want to join with the minister and others in this House in congratulating the people of Labrador West on Hope Haven. Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically offer congratulations to people like Jackie Winters, Frances Fry, Janice Barrens-Gallant, Patsy Ralph, Dianne Gear, Edwina Brenton, and I am sure there are many others. These are women I met with, when I was Minister for the Status of Women, and worked with on this particular initiative. Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to be part of a government that contributed more than $100,000 to this project in partnership with our federal partners, our MP for Labrador, under the ACOA programs and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit the old centre and I know the extreme need that existed in that area, and the need to certainly have better facilities. Hope Haven opened in December and it has been very well utilized since that time. I think they had their official opening last week.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister for the Status of Women that her real response to women in this Province should be through her own leadership in terms of the issues that she takes on, in response to women all across the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Just a few minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker, because there is a campaign by women all across this Province right now called the Feminist Fits. It is kind of a tongue twister, but it is a very serious, very active campaign by women in our Province who are dealing with the issue of increased funding for women centres and shelters, and is dealing with the policies that government is making like the closure of the HRE offices.

Mr. Speaker, they are a very active group. They have been actively pursuing and lobbying the minister, and I ask her today - maybe she should show some leadership and respond to all these e-mails and these women across our Province who are contacting her office.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that while I am glad that this new facility is now open, I guess all members would agree that we all look forward to the day when these shelters are not needed in our society. However, today we do not live in that reality and shelters such as Hope Haven are needed.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of meetings bringing this to its conclusion. There was a lot of work for a long number of years - the lobby goes on - to have such a centre open in Labrador West. I guess I would be remiss if I did not thank the Iron Ore Company of Canada for their help and assistance throughout the years by providing space to the crisis shelter in order to have a place where women and children, mainly, could go in times of need.

I would also like to thank a few of the local people, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: - with the risk of omitting some, I would also like to thank Jackie Winters, Susan Bona-Landry, Frances Fry, Edwina Brenton, who is the chairperson of the board at the present time, and of course, our MP Lawrence O'Brien, who, along with myself, had many meetings over the years with the women's groups in Labrador West to try and get this shelter. I think it is something that the community - as I said, we wish we did not have the need for but the reality is that we do and it is good to see that they have their own place and able to meet the needs of the community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you, on the point of privilege that I raised a few minutes ago, if I may?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you making a new point of privilege?

MS JONES: More a point of order, I guess.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order would be appropriate if you wish to at this time.

A point of order by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in my point of privilege the Minister of Transportation and Works responded by saying that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation did not respond to me - other than the press release he sent out on Friday condemning the information that I put out in the public - because of illness or sickness.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I have all the sympathy in the world for any member in this Legislature or any person in this Province who is ill, especially has an illness that affects their ability to be able to carry forward with their job or the duties of their job. But, Mr. Speaker, I have just learned that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is in the CBC radio studio in St. John's doing a cross-talk program. I think the minister has misled this House today by standing in his place and telling me that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation could not respond to the information, to me, because of illness. Now, if the minister was ill he would not be in the studio if he had an illness that prohibited him from carrying out his responsibilities as a minister. Mr. Speaker, it does not take away from the fact that the point of privilege I raised earlier is a legitimate point of privilege and it is one that has infringed upon my rights as a member, as a parliamentarian, in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the information I quoted in the public - again, I will say - was information that was obtained through the Executive Council of government from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, information that the deputy minister had the courtesy to call me this morning and tell me it was given to me and was false. But, Mr. Speaker, the minister sent out a press release. He did not send out a press release saying that the information came from his department and was false. In fact, he sent out a press release saying the information that I put in the public domain was inaccurate and was false. Now, Mr. Speaker, both ministers have misled this House and misled the people of the Province, and I ask for an apology from both of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to cool down. Nobody has misled anybody about anything. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has a medical problem that takes him to Ottawa for medical treatment. He has already been up there previously, some time within the last month. He has an eye problem, if anybody looks at him can see. He is wearing a patch those days and he has to go back to Ottawa in an effort to have that corrected.

The information that I had passed along to me before I came to the House, Mr. Speaker, was that the hon. minister had, in fact, travelled from his district to St. John's today, just around lunchtime. I understand that he is doing this CBC in-studio thing at about now and then he is heading to the airport to go to Ottawa. Now that is the information. There is nothing false about it, that I know. There is nobody deliberately misleading anything.

The hon. member is all hot to trot about something, but, Mr. Speaker, nobody is misleading this House or giving false information to the House. Therefore, I say, Your Honour, that there is no point of order.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mean to belabour this, Mr. Speaker, but to the point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

MR. GRIMES: I will sit down when I am finished and the Speaker indicates that I should, thank you very much.

I understand that our friends over there are getting a little sensitive because they do not like the fact that, again, they provided misinformation to this House. It was done by a minister of the Crown. Mr. Speaker, everybody who sat here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe I heard the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair say ‘deliberately', and very audible from where I am. I will ask the member if she would rise and apologize or withdraw the comment, that any minister deliberately misled the House.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister, himself, has indicated to me that he knew the difference when he said that he knew he was at CBC studios. If that is not deliberately misleading this House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has always been ruled unparliamentary, regardless of the circumstances, that a member should never, ever accuse another hon. member of deliberately misleading the House, under any circumstances. It has always been ruled unparliamentary. I am asking the member if she would stand in her place and withdraw the comment.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw the comment. Based on what I heard the minister say in the House today, he has admitted that he knew the difference.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I appeal to the member, because we have parliamentary rules and the rules of Parliament are such that the Chair does not have any choices in this matter. The member has admitted that she said the words. The Chair heard the words and therefore there is no need to check the records. Again, I am asking the member, out of respect for Parliament itself. It has always been ruled in this House, in Ottawa and all other parliamentary systems in our democracy, that it is always unparliamentary to accuse another hon. member of deliberately misleading the House. Again, I appeal to the member, one last time, if she would rise in her place and withdraw the comment.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to yourself and to Parliament, I honestly cannot withdraw those comments after hearing the minister, himself, admit he knew the difference today in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I ask the member - I am reluctant to do this. You know the next stage is that I will have to name you, name the hon. member pursuant to the authority that is vested in me under the rules of this House in Standing Order 22. I am asking the member one last time if she would, out of respect for Parliament, withdraw the comment.

MS JONES: My deepest apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues in this Assembly but I cannot withdraw the comments that I have made. I feel they are true and I feel that the minister, himself, in his own comments have divulged such information to me that leads me to believe he knew the difference when he made his original statement and has, indeed, misled this House and he should be the one apologizing, not myself.

MR. SPEAKER: Yvonne Jones, I must name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair and ask if you will withdraw from the House for the balance of the sitting day.

Continuing the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe all members would recognize the seriousness of the issue with respect to a member taking that action, all of which could have been avoided, Mr. Speaker, if the Acting Government House Leader today - and this is the point of order, because I believe when you review the tapes with respect to this point of order, everyone who is here heard the explanation given at the beginning of the day and the point of privilege when the Acting House Leader did not talk anything about being in a district, travelling to St. John's, going to the studio and then going to Ottawa, talked about a medical condition that was serious enough so that the minister, because of the medical condition, could not phone the member and apologize. That was the explanation given. We should understand, as well, that the minister wasn't going to be present today because of the nature of the medical condition which required treatment outside the Province.

Subsequent to that, we find out that the Acting Government House Leader knew all along that in fact the minister was in the city, not in the precincts of the Legislature, but performing another function on behalf of government, on a radio talk show where, at this very minute, he is still answering questions from the public, even though the Legislature is open. That is deemed to be important, that is deemed to be a priority. The Acting Government House Leader knew that. He just confirmed that he knew that, that he was on a radio talk show. He just said that with his own lips, Mr. Speaker, in this own words. Still, for all, he tried to explain that you couldn't expect the minister to give the apology to the member, that was given on behalf of the minister by the deputy, but the same minister could take the time to draft a press release saying that it was the MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who was putting out false information.

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious point of order, and I believe, in fact, that the Acting Government House Leader should stand up and acknowledge that he did, in fact, just provide misleading and infactual information to a member of the Legislature, right in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are going to reserve on the Point of Privilege, and I had an opportunity to speak to that before, but now we have the third instance of a minister in the Legislature. We have the document itself which is being dealt with, Mr. Speaker, this particular document which was provided to us, Budget details and statistics for all provincial electoral districts, March 30, 2004. We have that document in which there have been incidents raised about driver exams and now, in this particular case, about a travel subsidy for Labrador, all of which is printed in here, by the way, and provided.

Now, you have the Minister of Environment and Conservation giving one explanation to the House saying, oh, never mind the fact that it is in here. The first explanation is, it is a work in progress, it is only a draft document, you should ignore what is in this book.

On another matter, which is the travel subsidy for residents of Labrador, and particularly students trying to participate in intra-provincial competitions, which they have always done, the information written in here says it is decreased by $10,000. It is there in black and white. The minister who, supposedly, is too ill to call the member and clarify it, has the Deputy Minister clarify it by phone, privately, and apologize for giving wrong information, while the same minister is putting out a public document to the whole world condemning the member for putting out false information, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

I believe, in this instance, we have the government members who either don't know, the ministers and others, what was provided to us. They are coming up with a different excuse every day as to how to deal with it. In fact, what we have asked in the point of privilege, which is what the Government House Leader will deal with tomorrow, is whether or not the ministers will just get up and admit that either false information was provided, which is what the deputy did but the minister would not do - that would be a good acknowledgment, so that we can do our work as members - or today we would have the Acting House Leader apologize for spending a couple of minutes at the beginning of the session explaining why the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation could not make a phone call to a member, and why the deputy had to make the phone call instead, only to find out that all the information provided was improper, non-factual information, and a misrepresentation of the circumstance.

I believe are still owed, the rest of us are still owed, an apology by the Acting House Leader to this point of order. I know that you will deal with the bigger point of privilege later in the week, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is an important point of order because this one document which was released on May 7, to the Opposition, has caused, now we are up to four, ministers to make statements that cause great difficulty for members on this side of the House to do their work. I think it was Shakespeare who had a saying: Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

Well, we have a very tangled web here now, Mr. Speaker. I will not say the rest of that statement because I might get thrown out of the House, but there is a very famous saying associated with that, and we have a very tangled web over here.

The Member for Labrador West relied on that document and got answers from the Minister of Government Services that turned out to be difficult for her and for us to understand what was going on. The acting minister, on Thursday, gave statements saying that it was a working document. We have the Minister of Tourism, who is not here today, so I cannot expect him to answer today. Now, we have the Acting Government House Leader, problems arising from the same document.

It is time we had this document cleared up, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Government House Leader has said that tomorrow he will have some answer for us, because he is not here today, but surely somebody on the opposite side can explain to the people of this Province, and of this House, what this document was. Is it an official government document? Can we rely on it, or can we not? Are we going to have this confusion go on for another week, with ministers getting themselves in trouble saying things, trying to defend a document that may or may not be accurate?

We have a very serious problem here and I think we can start off by having the member who is here today, who made a statement today which certainly led me - and I have to say that; I will not say deliberate, and I do not personally think it was, but certainly the words he chose to use to explain the circumstance led me - to a particular set of beliefs based on his statement. If that is not misleading, I do not know how anyone defines misleading.

I am not suggesting that it was deliberate, but perhaps the air can start to be cleared if the member opposite would apologize to the House for giving the impression, or allowing people to get the impression, that something was true that was not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only comment I would add is that I sat here as well and listened to what the Acting Government House Leader had to say today. I would also suggest, I do not think he - not deliberately. He made the statement, he deliberately made the statement, but not that he deliberately intended to mislead us.

The point is, I think his statement has been misleading. I think the Acting Government House Leader - there is no other way to take what he said here today, other than the fact that the Minister of Tourism Culture and Recreation could not do it because he was ill. If there were other facts that were not given at the time, that is fine, but there is nothing wrong - there has been a misleading of the people. I think it is only proper and the honourable thing to do, for the Acting Government House Leader to say: Fine, if I left out some information, if I left the wrong impression, I want to correct it. That is all, and we move on, but we find ourselves in a situation - this is not a case of not being big enough to stand up and say it. I know the hon. member is honourable and he would do what is right, but we end up here today with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who has been evicted from the Chamber over something that was not her fault, that the minister did not give the full picture.

I suggest, in the sake of sanity here, and propriety here in this House, that the Acting Government House Leader can save all of us a lot of trouble, and all of us a lot of dignity, by saying: Look, I did not give the full facts. I am sorry if I misled anybody. Let's move on.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank members for their submissions. Unfortunately, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is not here because she used the words, deliberately misleading, which are not parliamentary and Your Honour had no other choice but to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a long time on both sides of the House and I have never given deliberately misleading information to the Legislature. If anybody took that that way, I certainly apologize. The information I gave to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, when I originally stood today, was the information that I had. I was advised earlier in the day that the minister, for medical reasons, would be travelling out of the Province to receive that medical attention today. After I had said that in the House, I think I was advised that, in fact, he had arrived in the city from his district somewhere around lunchtime, was doing the CBC Radio phone-in show and then heading on to Ottawa. That information came subsequently to what I said earlier.

There was no intent to mislead, there is no intent to misinform, there is no intent to be anything but honourable, and I would hope that if the impression got out because of my inadequacy in using the English language then I certainly do apologize, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker acknowledges the comments of the hon. the Acting Government House Leader in issuing an apology for any comments that he has made. I do believe the intent of the point of order is that would be the purpose that has now been achieved. Therefore, we will proceed on to the rest of the day's agenda.

I do believe I had not called for, I think it was the fourth time, further statements by ministers. Further statements by ministers? Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday afternoon past in this Legislature, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, on behalf of the Official Opposition, introduced a motion calling for the creation of an all-party committee to draft the policy document that would be presented to all federal candidates and party leaders in the upcoming federal election. The purpose of the document would be to outline areas of concern and importance to this Province and request federal candidates to support our issues before they are elected to represent us in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, the question today to the Premier is, whether or not he and the government will join with our Party and the New Democratic Party to ensure that the issues of importance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are clearly stated during the upcoming federal election by moving on this motion that was introduced last Thursday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, last week, on behalf of the Province, I was in Europe on matters of importance to 5 Wing Goose Bay, on foreign overfishing - of course, it is a huge issue for the people of the Province - and, as well, on issues of trade with regard to business attraction for the Province and investment in the Province. It was a very worthwhile trip. It was a jam-packed six days, I can tell you, five countries in six days, but, in fact, I think we have accomplished a lot and achieved a lot for the Province during that trip.

My point being, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question, I was not in the House last Thursday and I apologize for not having seen the motion at this particular point in time. I just came back over the weekend, but I will certainly have a look at it and respond in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we will ask the question again tomorrow, after the Premier has had a chance to look at the kinds of things that have been happening in this Province while he has been away.

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues of importance facing Newfoundland and Labrador, many of which are directly related to the federal government. There is an upcoming federal election that will provide a good opportunity to receive written comments from our federal candidates, and over the last seven months very few of our federal-provincial issues have been addressed and very little has developed into actual benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador. This new government committed, in their Blue Book, to get a better deal from Ottawa on equalization, just to name one issue. Equalization. In fact, to date we probably have a worse deal on equalization than we had before. The question for the Premier is: Could you please provide an update to the people of the Province on your efforts since seven months ago to get a better deal on equalization in particular?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of Opposition implies that, because I was outside of the Province, I was not interested in things that were happening in the Province. Of course, nothing is further from the truth. In order to try and improve the economy and the desperate financial situation that he and his government have left us, we have to try to attract business to this Province. I am very proud, in fact, that we took the time to do that and made some wonderful business network connections through the various embassies in Rome, in Paris, in Brussels and in Berlin, and I intend to do absolutely more of that. No apologies for that; I am very proud to have done that.

With regard to the federal-provincial relations, by the admission of the Leader of the Opposition last year when he was Premier, in fact, he indicated that provincial-federal relations were at an all-time low. I am very proud to say that they are starting to move now to an all-time high. We have nurtured that, and fostered it. We have worked co-operatively. I actually spoke with the Prime Minister recently, a little over a week ago, on the whole issue of foreign overfishing. At that particular point in time, I indicated to him that I wanted to address the issue concerning the Atlantic Accord. I am delighted to say that he tried to contact me when I was in Rome, and the connection was lost, and I made a call during the weekend, so we are working very hard on federal-provincial relations because we feel that is very, very important to the Province. Of course, just as the economy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer very quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just as the economy has bottomed out and hit an all-time low with the past government, so have federal-provincial relations, but we intend to move them both back to normality. In fact, it is just a matter of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe just for the record, the short answer on equalization is that they have done nothing about equalization, because he never mentioned it and he had an opportunity to answer.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on a local television program, and today on an Open Line program, our minister in the federal Cabinet conducted interviews in which he commented publicly on federal-provincial issues, including the Atlantic Accord, and during these interviews our federal minister stated that the Province is currently getting a fair share from our offshore resources.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this: Could you please update us, as to what representation you have made to the federal government on getting the maximum benefits from our offshore resources, and why the federal government, through its minister in this Province, is now saying that we are getting a fair deal today? And, does he agree with the federal minister who claims we are getting lots and lots and lots of money from the offshore resources?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing for certain that I agree with the federal minister, and that is when he indicated the hon. gentleman opposite and his government had left us a financial nightmare. There is a lot of truth in that, and I certainly agree with him totally on that.

With regard to his statements on Open Line, I did not hear his statements on Open Line. I did not hear his other public statements. I joined him today when he presented a cheque to the Province for disaster relief for Badger and for Corner Brook, which we are very grateful to receive and thanked him very much for that.

As well, as the hon. gentleman knows, we have presented a detailed submission to the federal government, and have done so some considerable time ago. As well, what I have done on behalf of the government and on behalf of the Cabinet, is that I canvassed all the other Premiers across the country, something which the hon. gentleman, of course, failed to do last year when he was looking for fisheries support and amendments to the Constitution. He never bothered to ask the other Premiers whether they would be interested at the time. Actually, when it comes to fisheries issues, he is never interested enough to ask any questions, quite frankly. That is his record with regard to the FPI issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I might add, we certainly canvassed all the Premiers and have the support of eleven out of twelve, and the soft support of the twelfth Premier. As well, we also have taken the initiative to write the leaders of the federal parties, the New Conservative Party as well as the New Democratic Party, and have, in a response from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, we did have a slight accident when we wrote -

We received a good response, actually. The response was that they were in favour and support our position on the Atlantic Accord, so we are very, very well positioned, there is no doubt about it, with regard to the Atlantic Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is becoming more and more obvious, I think, the more the Premier speaks, that he has either neglected this issue with respect to the Atlantic Accord, or his message is not being heard in Ottawa at all, if our own federal minister is doing interviews in the Province saying that we are doing great, thank you very much, and saying that we should not expect equalization changes, because you cannot have your cake and eat it too, then the message is wasted on other Premiers who do not get to vote in the Government of Canada where the real issue is going to be decided.

The question again, I will ask, Mr. Speaker, maybe he will address it this time: What is it exactly that the Premier can report to the people of the Province that he has done that might actually be getting our argument heard with the federal government in Ottawa - not with somebody in New Brunswick, not with somebody in British Columbia, but with the Prime Minister of Canada in Ottawa, and the federal minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, who is still down here today saying we are getting our fair share under the Atlantic Accord? What is he doing to influence the people who need to be influenced?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I tell the hon. gentleman opposite what I have done, I will tell him what I have not done. I have not aggravated and annoyed and insulted the current Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister, possible leadership candidates, as he did, the federal minister and federal MPs of his own Party, as he did while he was in office. I have not done that, if we can set the record straight on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What we have done: When the new Prime Minister came into power, within one week he invited me to join with him for a meeting, and I laid out the issues of importance to the Government of Canada on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of those five issues, the Atlantic Accord was one, as well as foreign overfishing, Five-Wing Goose, the Churchill and other important issues to the people of the Province.

Since then, I have spoken to him on the phone on several occasions. I have also met him at First Ministers' Conferences where we have had an opportunity to address this. I have developed a good relationship with your good friend, John Efford, the Minister of Natural Resources, and we continue to discuss that. I have a commitment, as I just told you, from the Prime Minister to call me back and we will be discussing the Atlantic Accord in that.

I have spoken, as well, to the Minister of Natural Resources, with regard to his -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: And you shouldn't put words in the mouth of the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He is merely providing information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and explaining the situation, explaining that we do get royalties, however they are clawed back and there is an offset. It is the gap in that offset that we are after.

Perhaps if you just took the time to clearly explain rather than try to put words in the mouth of the federal Minister of Natural Resources, who certainly doesn't need it and nor do I.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

Before we proceed, the last number of exchanges have taken approximately a minute and fifteen seconds both ways. I ask members if they could keep their questions shorter and also their responses a little bit shorter as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister answered as he did, because he continues to tout the so-called wonderful new relationship with Ottawa. Well, I can tell you, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are waiting to see some results, especially with a federal election just around the corner.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't sound like good results when the federal minister - he can defend him if he wants, he can defend the federal minister who says: You cannot expect changes in equalization, because you can't have your cake and eat it too. If he agrees with that, stand up and tell the people of the Province. If he agrees with a federal minister who says, everything is okay with the Atlantic Accord, stand up and tell the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: I won't be saying that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: What about the 8.5 per cent share in Hibernia? What is the latest update? There is an election about to be announced. What is the latest update? Never mind the wonderful dinners and the phone calls and the great relationship, what about some action on something for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated previously, we have a response from the New Democratic Party, we have a response from the Conservative Party, and the only party from which we don't have a response, of course, is your party, the Liberal Party of Canada. We are awaiting that response.

I would assume the hon. gentleman opposite would have a good working relationship with the Liberal Party, and would be working on our behalf, working jointly together, to make sure we get the answers that are necessary, instead of working against us, working against your own people, working against the people of the Province, in order to try to prevent this from happening. The hon. gentleman doesn't want us to succeed. He doesn't want any good news for the people of the Province. That is his problem. It is just negative, negative, negative.

We are positive, we are going to think positive, and we are going to deliver for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record, Mr. Speaker, shows no progress whatsoever on equalization, no progress whatsoever on the Atlantic Accord, and no progress whatsoever on the 8.5 per cent, but lots of lovely chats.

Mr. Speaker, one last question. Another separate question. Last week we do understand and recognize that the Premier was on a different mission and was not in the Legislature, and I do not know whether he is aware or not because he was not aware of the motion made, but the Estimates Committee for the Department of Business - which is the pride and joy of the Premier, personally, and he, the minister of it - proceeded without the minister, the Premier who is also the minister, being available to answer questions.

I ask the Premier directly today: Would you agree, by consent - because we would gladly do it - to resume the Estimates Committee for the Department of Business so you can tell us about the wonderful things that your new department is going to create and do for the benefit of people in Newfoundland and Labrador? Would he commit to that today so that we can explore some of the good things, because so far we have heard nothing but bad news and no results from this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand in my absence last week, when I was working on behalf of the people of the Province, that an issue was made of the fact that I could not be at the Estimates for the Department of Business. Well, unfortunately I felt - and I am sure the absent member for Labrador and the other present member for Labrador would agree, that issues of importance for Labrador, like 5 Wing Goose Bay, are very, very important to the people of the Province and, indeed, the people of the Labrador. So that is why we went on that mission. We went to meet with the Italian Air Force and the German Air Force and the Dutch Air Force, and the embassies in all these cities. The other thing, from a business attraction perspective, the single, most important thing I did from the business side was to meet with these ambassadors to discuss business opportunities, to discuss networking, to bring European investment to this Province so that we can grow the economy, so that we can create jobs, so that we can economically diversify. That is why I went.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As well, Mr. Speaker, something which obviously is not of interest to the hon. gentleman opposite, is the whole issue of foreign overfishing. I went over there to advocate our case on behalf of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I went over there to advocate our case on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the overfishing that is going on our banks and our communities are closing. Our people are leaving the Province. That is why I went to Europe, and that is why I was not here!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was quite simple and straightforward. Now that you are back in the Province would you like to have three hours at an Estimates Committee meeting to expound further on what you just talked about in answer to that question? Would you like to have an opportunity to come before the Estimates Committee as the Minister Responsible for Business and spend three hours explaining exactly what you plan to do for Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at that particular Estimates Committee meeting I was very capably represented by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and because both departments are working together, working in tandem, she was very capable of making that representation. I understand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - I do not know if my information is correct, if it is not I will certainly clarify it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Premier and I ask the Premier now if he could complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I might add, it is also my understanding that the hon. members opposite, who were part of that committee, showed up and then left because they really did not care about the business that was taking place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, a very simple, straightforward question. The answer can be yes or no. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, in her own Estimates, said: Any questions about the new Business Department should be addressed to the minister responsible, who is the Premier, because he knows what is going on, I don't. Mr. Speaker, that is her own words. It is in Hansard.

We are saying, you are now back in the Province, Premier, yes or no, would you like an opportunity to come to an Estimates Committee meeting at your convenience tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow night, next week, the week after? At your convenience, would you like an opportunity to come and do the Estimates for the Department of Business that you are supposedly so proud of? Would you like to do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding - and I can be corrected if I am wrong - that that particular Estimates Committee meeting is over, that it has been passed and that it is done.

Now, what I do suggest to the hon. gentleman opposite is, you have Question Period, so if you want to stand up tomorrow for thirty minutes and ask me questions on the Department of Business feel free to do so because I will answer each and every one them!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday gas prices hit the roof, the highest we have ever seen in our Province. There is no question that government and the oil companies are going to benefit from increased profits. Taxes amount to about 40 per cent of the total cost per litre of fuel. That means that almost half of every fill up is going to the government. Given the extra burden these sky-high prices have on consumers, the minister must consider implementing a cap on the taxes paid to government. There will be no loss to government since the cap will only take effect when prices get to a level that government receives extra profits.

Will the Minister of Finance, today, implement such a cap on gasoline taxes to protect our consumers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is that kind of math, almost 50 per cent, that got us a billion dollar deficit. I would like to state that currently now, at the moment I speak, 23.5 per cent of the gasoline is provincial tax. Last year's average was 26.9 per cent. The member should know that in 1991 we moved from an ad valorem to a per litre tax and that is 16.5 cents and as -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Having a tax - and I support having tax per litre as opposed to ad valorem tax, which means that as the price of gasoline goes up discretionary income people may not be able to use as much so the consumption per litre goes down and we lose money on gasoline tax, number one, because consumption may go down. So we are losing when it is per litre. Number two, government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want to hear the answer I will give it, if not I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: If they do not want to hear it, that is no problem.

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that his answer is no to the consumers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government are just as guilty -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on all sides of the House if they would co-operate. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has the floor and she should be heard in relative silence while she is posing her question.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government are just as guilty of gouging consumers with gas taxes as the Minister of Finance is. A dollar a litre the federal treasury is profiting from us every time we fill up our vehicles. What representation has the Minister of Finance or your Cabinet colleagues made to the federal government concerning the high price of gas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the federal government is charging a higher rate and they feel it is a problem, it is a matter that needs to be addressed with the federal government. I will not doubt that, Mr. Speaker.

The member should know that the problem with gas prices is international in scope. It is beyond the scope of any provincial government to fix that problem. In fact, if the federal government wants to do something and deal with it, they have that option under their gasoline structure. But here in our Province, Mr. Speaker, we have a per litre tax and we stand to lose gasoline tax as a result of this measure. Furthermore, we also burn gasoline in government vehicles that is going up in price. So that is an extra cost to us. We are going to lose a double whammy, Mr. Speaker, not only in reduced consumption, but also in higher costs for government vehicles that are necessary to use.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear there are a couple of things at play here today. Number one, you do not intend to give any break to the consumers of this Province. I do not know what happened to the federal-provincial relationship. It is down the sink hole, as you just said, because you never even asked them about it.

Mr. Speaker, gas prices are the highest ever and the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission Office is still up in the air. The only thing we know is that the Premier and the Minister of Government Services have confirmed that there will be an office in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I want to ask the Minister of Government Services today: Minister, is it true that the function of the Commission is going to be taken over by the Public Utilities Board? Would you answer that, please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the pricing commissioner just this morning and then I will be making an announcement tomorrow with regard to the Pricing Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. It talks about gambling in the Province, particularly video gambling machines that are destroying families, not only in this Province, Mr. Speaker, but across the country. In Nova Scotia, between 2001-2002, ten suicides were linked to gambling. In conversation with Dr. Simon Avis, the Chief Medical Examiner for our Province, I was informed that last year we had three suicides. Of the three suicides we had gambling may have played a role. One, we all know for sure did.

We have all heard the tragic stories that are linked to gambling. I want to ask the minister if government intends to do as other provinces are preparing to do, and that is reduce the number of machines that are available, limit the times they can be used and cause interruptions to occur at frequent times, et cetera?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

We realize that there are serious concerns with people using them. In fact, when I was in Opposition, I raised the issue that people did not have an opportunity for access, and then they put a number on the machines where you could call to get help. This year, and I have been saying for some time, we need to increase our consciousness of this problem because it does destroy people's lives. We added it into the Budget this year. Traditionally, there has been $300,000 in the Budget to deal with addictions; $150,000 of it traditionally put in by government and $150,000 by the beverage industry. This year, we increased the government's commitment by another $100,000 to try to deal with some of the concerns, because it is a concern. It is an area that the people in the Department of Health are very conscious about. It is an area in which we certainly hope people would resort to responsible gambling. There are people who have addictions, and we have to be able to provide services to people who need help and make sure it is there when they need it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) years ago it was $52.4 million. Today it is $110 million. The Minister of Finance today stood in his place in this House a little while ago, when he was in Opposition, and talked about the moral obligation that government has to people who become addicted to gambling. You also stated that, if elected, your government would allocate 5 per cent of gambling revenues to treat addiction. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: Where is the $5 million that is lacking to help people with their problems today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not indicate that we would, if we were elected, put 5 per cent. I did a news release some time ago saying - and I spoke on it publicly on numerous occasions - that we should start and work up toward that percent. I did numerous interviews on it. I did one on the parliamentary channel, actually, federally, on the same thing in one of the pubs down off Duckworth Street, Mr. Speaker, and I indicated that we should start increasing our contribution until it gets to a certain percent.

First of all, I think his question should reflect what I accurately did say. I am a believer that we should increase it. The previous government, for a number of years, did not put one extra cent in and we increased it significantly this year. Certainly, the problem is there. The Department of Health, in conjunction, working with them, we might, hopefully, be able to allocate more money in the future toward that problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister this: If his government is prepared to do as Alberta has done, prepared to allow communities who wish to have the right to hold a referendum to ban video lottery machines in their communities during next year's municipal election, and if they agree, will they do so in time for this referendum to take place on the ballot during next year's municipal elections in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to respond to the hon. gentleman's question because it is a matter that is of grave concern to me, quite frankly, something that personally has bothered me for a long, long time. I am glad you have raised it. It is a good set of questions.

We have to find a way to address this problem. I know there was actually, in fact, a referendum in New Brunswick and I was very surprised at the outcome because they actually voted to leave them in place. We do have a fiscal problem here, and there is no justification for the hardship that is happening to families. I know families, personally, who have lost their homes.

MR. REID: How well did you know them?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the Member for Twillingate & Fogo would just allow me, this is a very serious matter. There is no need to be playing games here.

It is something that we are going to have a look at. It was a small step to add a few dollars towards the addiction side, towards the treatment side. It is something we are going to look at, during our term in office, and we are going to try and do something about it. I cannot make any rash commitments to you right now; neither can the minister or our Cabinet. It is a matter of very, very grave concern that is causing a lot of hardship on a lot of families in this Province. I do not like it, and we have to try to find a way to deal with it.

Thank you for your question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to raise a point of order concerning a statement by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board just a few moments ago in Question Period, and offer him an opportunity to correct himself; because it is my view - and it is not only my view, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves - that he has misled the House in his statement about what he said when he was in Opposition.

I have in front of me a news release dated October 15, 1999, which comes off the PC Party Web site on May 13. The headline is: The Province should allocate five per cent of provincial lottery profits towards gambling addictions.

The first paragraph says, "Opposition Health critic Loyola Sullivan is calling on the province to allocate a minimum five per cent of total lottery profits to help those people victimized by gambling addictions."

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table it, or ask a Page to show it to the hon. member, because this is absolutely unequivocal, not qualified in any way, a clear statement by the minister when he was Opposition Health critic, saying, not that we would work our way up towards it but that we would dedicate a minimum of 5 per cent to this particular cause.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, he did say it. He did say various things in addition to that, but the last sentence is a quote, "Five per cent of total lottery revenues for rehabilitation services isn't asking very much, considering the dilemma many families are confronted with through gambling."

I would offer him an opportunity to correct himself, Mr. Speaker, but I do say that he certainly misled the House and misled the people of the Province in saying what he did in answer to the question from the Member for Labrador West.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did, on numerous occasions, speak. I did indicate that they should allocate 5 per cent. I did an interview with Roger Bill for C-PAC and I did numerous interviews at the time and I indicated that it is money you cannot throw in immediately. You have to start and build it up. There were numerous interviews that were done publicly at the time, that could vouch for that.

Yes, I did indicate it was a goal and I did say up to 5 per cent, but it could not be done immediately. I also made that statement numerous times in public. If that is the specifics of this that he interpreted, I certainly accept this as a release, I say to the hon. member, but if he would follow up on other things emanating from that he would find that I said that it could not be done overnight, it would have to work up to a certain level.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. We have a disagreement between two hon. members over the presentation of facts and that, in itself, does not constitute a valid point of order. So, there is no point of order on this particular matter.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees? Notices of Motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the challenge of constructing and maintaining transportation infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador is enormous, given our difficult terrain and our relatively small population dispersed over a large area; and

WHEREAS much of this Province's existing transportation infrastructure has deteriorated in recent years as a consequence of insufficient funding; and

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada establishes the principle of equalization which directs governments in Canada to reduce the disparity of opportunities associated with the relatively poor fiscal capacity of a province; and

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has entered into transportation agreements with this and other provinces whereby it has funded or cost-shared valuable infrastructure work; and

WHEREAS in 1988, fifteen-years ago, Newfoundland and Labrador entered into the transportation initiative known as the Roads for Rail Agreement, and this agreement has now expired, leaving the Province with significantly diminished funding in the face of an undiminished need; and

WHEREAS proper transportation infrastructure is required to attract and complement investments that will create jobs and opportunities in our communities.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Government of Canada to enter into a comprehensive transportation infrastructure agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to our Standing Orders, I am taking this opportunity now to inform all hon. members that this coming Wednesday is the government Private Members' Day and the resolution that was just read into the record by my colleague from Bonavista South will be the resolution that will be up for debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion? Answers to questions for which notice has been given? Petitions? Orders of the Day.

Oh, I am sorry. I apologize to the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, on a petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition to this hon. House regarding the schooling situation in Carbonear, from the parents and students out there, and how upset they are over the actions of the present government. I want to read to the House, the petition:

WHEREAS parents and students in Carbonear do not want to have their school close and unnecessarily bus students to Harbour Grace; and

WHEREAS existing school boards now cease to exist; and

WHEREAS a decision to close St. Mary's primary school in St. John's has been reversed; and

WHEREAS a new school in Carbonear is necessary; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to reverse the decision of the Avalon West School Board to close St. Joseph's school, reverse the decision to bus students to Harbour Grace and commit funds to construct a new school in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday past there was a giant motorcade in Carbonear, ending up with a rally at the parking lot of the school in Carbonear, St. Joseph's school. The school was surrounded by parents, students and teachers from St. Joseph's and from the surrounding area, protesting the lack of action by this government in not having the new school board, that they just recently appointed, set up in a way that they can meet with these parents and hear their cases. The parents and myself, and all the residents in the area, feel that the decision of the former school board - the one that is now disband - should be held or reversed until the new school board has an opportunity to take action and do something regarding the school situation in the area.

Mr. Speaker, St. Joseph's school is an exemplary school. The principal of the school was principal of the year last year on a national level. The students and parents have come together there and the programs that are offered are exemplary. We look at the situation now where that school will close in September and the students will be bused to Harbour Grace. The school in Harbour Grace, St. Francis, is not ready. There has been no funding committed. There has been no tender calls for the necessary renovations to the school to accommodate the larger influx of students. The remainder of students from St. Joseph's will be transferred to Davis Elementary. Davis Elementary, itself, is not ready. There has been all kinds of talk about building a piece on. There is nowhere to build a piece onto that school in Carbonear, Davis Elementary. The only sensible thing to do would be to build a new school. Construct a new school in the area.

A little while ago the Minister of Finance told me I was wasting my time, but I want to say that I am not wasting my time because the minister himself got a school approved in this year's Budget for his own district, which was not even on the list of recommended schools by that school board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, just to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: On behalf of the residents of Carbonear and the students of Carbonear, our situation is no different. We should be looked at under the vigilance of the new school board that is coming in place.

Mr. Speaker, this petition and others will follow because there are more names coming on a daily basis. I will be back to state my case again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate this opportunity and I am very pleased to see that the Minister of Government Services is in her seat because it directly concerns her department and the closure of the weigh scales at Port aux Basques.

I returned to my district on the weekend and I was presented with this petition. I am amazed with the swiftness of its preparation and its signing because it was done when I got back home on Friday, notwithstanding that the announcement was only made last week. I understand this is one of many to come. I am sure the minister is aware of the outcry that has taken place in this Province in the last four to five days concerning her government's decision to close the weigh scales, particularly the one at Port aux Basques.

I understand now the Minister of Justice might also have a problem because - in terms of personnel and human lives, which are affected by the actual transfer - the four personnel in Port aux Basques are going to bump into the Pynns Brook station, which causes the Minister of Justice some problems in his district too. The basic, biggest problem here is that this was done without any consideration whatsoever for the safety of the people of this Province or the 400,000 people a year who visit this Province. We are saving $400,000 a year by laying off ten people. They average about $40,000 a piece in terms of wages, four of them in Port aux Basques. So about $160,000 in the Port aux Basques operation. Very little, if anything, to infrastructure. Yet, the safety factors of 80,000-plus vehicles coming off the ferry now without inspection - I have to clarify, because there is some confusion as well, that the people at these stations just do not weigh trucks. They are inspectors. They are qualified journeymen mechanics who say whether the straps are on right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes. Does the truck have the right load? Is it a wide load? Is it a narrow load? If it is wide, do they have an escort? Do they have a permit to get into the Province? If they are overweight, how do we insist that they get their load taken off and broken down? What are their tires like? Are their axles working? Are their shocks working? That is what happens at this weigh station there. We are now allowing this government - this minister is going to allow 80,000-plus tractor-trailers to come into this Province and go 270,000 kilometres without any such inspection.

The other piece I would like to point out to the minister, there is some commentary about the scales being broken since last July. Well, actually they were. The scales themselves - the weigh mechanism was broken as a result of an electrical outage caused by a thunderstorm and lightening.

The minister's department, the director himself was notified, not once - because I checked with the four personnel who worked with the weigh scales. I said: Why didn't you let me know? They said: Well, it is not our job to let you know, Mr. Parsons. You are the MHA, what does it have to do with you? We went to the people who should be fixing these things. We went to our bosses and we told them repeatedly to fix it. They fixed it alright. The decision of the minister and the director, the easiest way to fix the problem was close it down. That is exactly what they have done. A $7,000 problem - that could cost 7,000 lives if that station do not stay open - was not fixed because somebody said we did not have the money in the Budget to fix it. Where do we put value on people's lives in this Province anymore? I did not think we did. This petition expresses the frustration, not only of myself here today in explaining it, but all the people in that area of the Province who use it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity and I will, indeed. This is a very sensitive, important issue and I will be back again because this is not an issue that deserves to stay as it is. The minister needs to look beyond the few dollars she is saving, think about the lives that it will protect and make sure that this decision is reversed. It is totally unacceptable; without logic, without rationale. If you want to save $160,000 and you insist on saving it from the wage category, get rid of or lay off - as you are doing - to junior people. You do not have to close the facility and compromise everyone's safety. If you are only interested in saving the bucks, do it by the usual layoff procedures under the Collective Bargaining process. Do not close the station. You have tried to accomplish one thing here, save a few measly dollars from a salary package, and what have you done? You have compromised everybody's safety and security in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 9, second reading, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act. (Bill 11).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act." (Bill 11)

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce this bill, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act. This amendment relates to changing the law respecting limitation periods for taking legal action that survive the death of a person.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of members, it is important to realize that when someone has a cause of action, when someone has had a wrong done to them or when their contract has been breached, then they have the right to sue and they have the right to take an action. They must do it within a period of time that is known as a limitation period. If you do not commence the action within that limitation period, the action is lost. This particular piece of legislation deals with changing the limitation period that exists under the Survival Of Actions Act.

I should say, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that a number of years ago the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Reform Commission conducted a study into the various limitation periods and tried to come up with a rational system in dealing with the many limitation periods that existed. The Law Reform Commission recommended, at the time, that all limitation periods be divided into three: two years, six years, ten years. Of course, for certain causes of action there would not be a limitation period. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you have a cause of action against someone for trespass to your property, there is a two year limitation period. If you have an action to recover a debt, the limitation period in that period of time would be six years. Actions to recover land, for example, would be ten-year limitation periods. Certain pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, have not been brought into that system, and the limitation period under the Survival of Actions Act is one of them. This bill will amend the Survival of Actions Act by eliminating the special limitation periods tied to the date of probate or administration of an estate or the date of death of a person.

This act will, instead, provide that the usual limitation periods that are set out in the Limitations Act, which was legislation passed after the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Reform Commission made its report, will apply.

Mr. Speaker, when the Law Reform Commission, in 1986, considered whether the period that is set out in the Survival of Actions Act should be reviewed, it was determined that it was not appropriate to change the period set out in the act at that time without further consultation with members of the bar.

Mr. Speaker, under the existing provisions of the act, under Section 5 - and I will read it for the benefit of all hon. members. Section 5 of the Survival of Actions Act states, "An action shall not be brought under this Act unless proceedings are started within 6 months after letters of probate or administration of the estate of the deceased have been granted and proceedings shall not be started in an action under this Act after the expiration of 1 year after the date of death of the deceased."

Mr. Speaker, this wording, dealing with the six-month period and the one-year period, has resulted in missed limitation periods due to the short time frame for actions to be taken after death and the difficulty in determining whether a litigant or a potential litigant has died, and whether a person's estate has, in fact, been probated or administered. This has negatively impacted on some lawyers and some clients and some potential litigants in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador and various members of the legal community have expressed concerns about this issue and have requested this amendment. This amendment to the Survival of Actions Act will remove the six-month and one-year limitation periods in favour of the various periods that are set out in the Limitations act. As I said, that is two years, six years and ten years.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is consistent with the Survival of Actions act in Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta. As well, the legislation in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan has a similar effect.

This change to the Survival of Actions Act in Newfoundland and Labrador is overdue. Mr. Speaker, I believe this change will be a positive one and will be widely supported within the legal community and, in fact, as I mentioned, the Law Society has requested this amendment.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this amendment to the act, Mr. Speaker. I ask for the support of all hon. members in the passing of this amendment, and I look forward to the participation of all hon. members on both sides of the House in this debate.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few comments in second reading on this bill, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act.

The minister is quite right, it is basically a corrective action being taken at this time, because when the major overhaul was done to the Limitations Act some years ago, the cross-reference and how it would impact upon the Survival of Actions Act was missed, quite frankly. A gentleman by the name of, a practitioner here in town, Mr. Steve Marshall, actually, I met with him about a couple of years ago and brought it to our attention and to the attention of the Law Society because the Survival of Actions Act was very obvious to Mr. Marshall because in his line of work, in which he does a lot of personal injury claims, he was quite often dealing with fatalities and initiating lawsuits on behalf of people's estates who had been killed in traffic accidents. He became aware of this conflict very quickly, between what the Survival of Actions Act permitted and what the Limitations Act permitted. He came back, the legislative draftsmen in the Department of Justice and myself reviewed it with Mr. Marshall at the time, we went back to the Law Society, and all parties concur that this was merely on oversight and it was a conflict that could not be allowed to continue to exist between the Limitations Act and the Survival of Actions Act, because it is never anyone's intention, of course, to take anyone's rights away, if you have rights. The purpose, of course, is to try and let people know and avail of those rights. It was an unintentional, shall we say, consequence of an amendment of Limitations Act that impacted upon the Survival of Actions Act.

The purpose of this bill, now, is to remove that conflict so that we do have consistency and the Limitations of Actions Act will, in fact, rule on a go-forward basis. That is the principle. An anomaly, I guess, we have. So, the purpose of this legislation is corrective in nature and that is why we, certainly, on this side of the House, will be fully supportive of this amendment. We all appreciate, in fact, it started on our watch, and we are very pleased to see that the current government is continuing with this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act. (Bill 11)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Survival Of Actions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 11)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act." (Bill 4)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, to rise in the House to introduce Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.

The Corporations Act requires clarification and changes to improve the operational efficiency of the Registry of Companies. We are also harmonizing our Canadian residency requirement for directors of provincial corporations with other jurisdictions.

This bill was originally introduced in the House in the spring of 2003, by the former Administration. It makes several changes to the Corporations Act. Specifically, it clarifies the application of the act to federally incorporated companies and Crown corporations. It allows for the filing of electronic documents and a change in the timing for filing annual returns. It permits not-for-profit corporations to file notice for a change of directors annually and it reduces the Canadian residency requirement for provincial corporations from a majority to 25 per cent.

First, I want to speak to the amendment that will ensure the intent of the legislation is clear. The intent of the Corporations Act is to treat federally incorporated companies that do business in the Province the same as provincially incorporated companies. Both are required to register under and are subject to the act. Lawyers have raised questions about what they believe to be legislative uncertainty over whether the act actually applies to federal companies.

The previous Administration realized this difference of interpretation existed and this amendment, a good amendment, I might add, was brought forward. The amendment will clarify that federal corporations are subject to the same requirements as provincial ones. For example, a company incorporated in the Province of Ontario, that does business here, be it an insurance company or a retailer, must register under, and is subject to, our provincial act. We want it understood that the same applies to federally-incorporated companies, such as national chains.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation also needs to be clarified as it pertains to Crown corporations. Under the current wording, some provisions appear to apply to Crown corporations, while other provisions exempt these corporations. This amendment will clarify that the Crown corporations are not subject to the act. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that much of the Corporations Act is set up to protect minority shareholders. Crown corporations do not have minority shareholders to protect. The act will apply to Crown corporations that do not have their own legislation. Otherwise, Crown corporations would only be subject to the act if it was specifically written into the legislation that created it.

The amendment relating to the timing of annual returns is necessary to improve the operational efficiency of the Registry of Companies. The amendment will allow for corporations to file their annual return in the month of the anniversary of the corporation. The act currently requires that annual returns be filed by April 1 of each year. The single filing date creates a huge backlog of annual returns around that date and a significant workload for the registry. The new computer system for the Registry of Companies allows for the annual filing on the first day of the month of the corporation's anniversary. This spaces out the workload over twelve months.

Efficiency is also the reason for amending the legislation to allow for documents to be submitted to the registry electronically. The act currently requires that a hard copy be provided. This amendment is necessary to accommodate the implementation of electronic registration. Providing opportunities for more e-commerce is a commitment of this government. Allowing for electronic registration is consistent with this commitment.

The amendment to allow not-for-profit corporations to file changes to their board annually will reduce the administrative burden on these corporations. Many not-for-profit corporations are volunteer and have significant turnover, as other matters encroach on a director's ability to serve. The act currently requires that these corporations notify the registry within fifteen days of a director changing. This amendment will make it easier on these not-for-profit corporations, while at the same time making better use of staff time within the registry.

A change is necessary to the Canadian residency requirement for a board of directors of the provincial corporation. The amendment reduces the requirement in this Province from a majority to 25 per cent. This is in line with the federal government and other provincial jurisdictions. This harmonization is crucial in ensuring our ability to be competitive in attracting companies to our Province. The current requirement that the majority of directors be Canadian citizens is a hindrance to foreign investment.

Mr. Speaker, these six amendments are important for: the efficient operation of the Registry of Companies; to clarify the application of the act; and to ensure that the Province remains competitive in attracting businesses.

I look forward to the support of members opposite in the passage of this bill. It is a good bill, as members of the previous Administration know. I am pleased today to bring this bill forward to debate on behalf of the members of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, Jack, I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: I think an arrangement has been made whereby the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi will speak first.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there have been some discussions with the Opposition House Leader.

The legislation currently before the House to amend the Corporations Act provides some significant changes to the way the Corporations Act and Registry operate, and, in general, we are supportive of them.

I see clause 1 and clause 2 dealing with the notion of how government corporations may operate is in keeping with some issues that were raised last year when we were talking about the incorporation of the health information corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, which legislation is also before this House. The notion was very important for those of us who were in Opposition at the time. Particularly, the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs and myself raised this matter with government last year when the Centre for Health Information was being incorporated under the Corporations Act and the notion was that this would be a separate corporation with its own board of directors.

We were very concerned that the Centre for Health Information, in fact, be a government agency so that information that was being given, and very personal information, by the Cancer Treatment Centre, by the health corporations, the various ones across the Province, by MCP and by others, was going to be, in fact, in the hands of a government agency, not just the corporation that was established. One of the concerns was that the Corporations Act was not really designed to handle that, so this legislation kind of clarifies that to some extent, Obviously, the separate incorporation by statute of the Centre for Health Information is also an important piece of that but it is incorporated pursuant to the Corporations Act that we have here before us.

Clause 1 of the bill allows the fact that corporations set up under the Corporations Act can be, in fact, government agencies set up for a government purpose and can determine, by the Registrar, whether the act applies to the body corporate. The new section says, "This Act, except where it is otherwise expressly provided, applies to every body corporate, whether incorporated under this Act, the former Act or an Act of Newfoundland or of the province." - and that - "(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), this Act does not apply to a body corporate incorporated under a statue other than this Act or the former Act that the registrar determines was created for a government or municipal purpose, unless the incorporating statue expressly provides for the application of all or part of this Act."

That allows what has been done under the Centre for Health Information act to use the Corporations Act where it is important and significant but also to recognize that certain corporations are, in fact, government agencies. So, we do support that change to the legislation here.

It is also, I think, positive that we can now have the annual reports and filings being done on a round-the-year basis. It is a convenient way to manage the workload at the Registry of Companies. I know the minister mentioned this. We have seen it done in other areas. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles now does that. You know, everybody does not line up March 31 to get their new driver's licence or their vehicle permit renewed, which happened years ago. I remember myself, Mr. Speaker, going to the Registrar. It was on the west end of town, and there would be lineups going on for two days trying to get your driver's licence renewed because everybody had to get their driver's licence renewed at the same time. Well, the same sort of thing goes on with the Corporations Act now, although nobody lines up. They just send the paperwork into the department and, instead of lining up, it piles up. It takes some weeks, if not longer, for all of this information to be sorted out, inputted and made available for people who need to have this information to search it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are all together too many conversations going on. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On that point, there is also mention made by the minister that making provision for electronic filing is important. I agree with her, that this is important but perhaps what may be more important, Mr. Speaker - and perhaps the minister when she closes debate at second reading can refer to this. I think what is more important is that there be access by online to this kind of information.

I know, Mr. Speaker, if I want to find out, and if anybody in this Province wants to find out the name of the directors of a corporation in the Province of Nova Scotia, for example, to use one example, or the number of directors, the address of the directors, where the registered office is, any bits of information that is filed with the registry - I think they call them in Nova Scotia, Joint Stock Companies, but it is the same idea as corporations of the Corporations Act - you merely have to go to the Nova Scotia Government Web site and click and follow the lead. Click on the appropriate dots and you can print off and download corporate information on any company operating in the Province of Nova Scotia. That is something that should be available here.

The minister talked about e-commerce. Yes, it is convenient to have people file things by registry but the whole purpose of this registry, Mr. Speaker, is that this is public access, open to people, not only people in the business community, legal community, but to members of the public generally to find out what corporations are operating, where their head offices are, who the directors are and what filings they have made with the registry of companies. I would welcome the minister telling us whether or not there are plans afoot in her department to ensure that that is going to happen because we are behind the times when it comes to that kind of access to information from this particular government.

I know on the revenue side, and I say that I suppose - motor registration, for example. We have no trouble now registering a vehicle from year to year by going under the government Web site, if you can give them a visa number or a Master Card number, and having your sticker sent in the mail. It is a very convenient way to do business with the government, but in terms of access to information, in particularly filing for the registry of corporations, I would urge the minister to move forward on those grounds as well.

I had some concerns - and the minister perhaps has addressed that - about the reduction in the requirement of the number of directors that are resident in Canada. Mr. Speaker, these provisions were designed to ensure that governments had some control over the activities of corporations that are operating in the Province because what we do - and I suppose to be very simplistic about it, the allowing of corporations to do business, which we do under the Corporations Act. It allows the creation of what our lawyers, friends in the House would know, as a legal personality, so that corporation x becomes a legal person. That corporation can operate within the Province, can do business within the Province, can act within the Province, can, in fact, allow the activities of that corporation to hide behind the corporate name so that the liability for what those companies and corporations do becomes, in fact, limited and that the only person, for the most part, that can be sued, in certain parameters, is the corporation instead of the people. So, it is a limitation of liability for conduct of business.

One of the requirements has been, traditionally, when the Province has been registering corporations is that there be some measure of local control. In this case we have gone from local control to Canada-wide control. So, the majority of directors had to be Canadians because we assume we can go after Canadian directors if they do something because we have agreements with other provinces and other juridictions. Now we are going to the point here - and maybe the minister can explain what the safeguards are. We are now going to the point where the majority of directors could be non-Canadian. So, you know if - I do not mean to be facetious, but if the companies are owned by the steamship companies operating in Bermuda or under Liberia or some other place where corporations are not as well regulated - I know people do that with steamships. They operate in another country and then they come and get registered here. The question would be: To what extent do we have or the protections to ensure that we have some control over these corporations when they operate and do business in this Province?

Obviously, 25 per cent Canadian directors ensures that there is at least someone, and maybe that is sufficient protection. I am not an expert on corporate law, but I do know that there are a lot of difficulties sometimes in tracking down responsibility for corporate activity to try to sue or to try to get a judgement enforced against a corporation for legal liability, whether it be manufactures liability or some other liability that takes place. So, perhaps the minister could explain that, why 25 per cent is enough and the majority of Canadian directors is - we are prepared to let that go out the window and give up the protection that we previously had.

I think one of the clauses here in this bill, I am surprised that we are still doing - clause 6 of the bill allows the registrar to determine the form of documents to be filed with the registrar. I guess that is a step beyond having the minister decide. That is sort of a new one.

Perhaps the minister could also tell us to what extent - we do have very grave concerns across this country about trying to get things the same from one province to the other. I know in corporate circles - in securities, for example, we have securities registrations in various parts of the country. Many people have commented on how we need some sort of unified control over that, particularly with publicly traded companies. We have our own securities regulations. Ontario does. Alberta does. B.C. does. There has been some efforts and some discussions over the last number of years, particularly when we see the issue of director's liability and director's responsibility being raised. We do need to see more control. Each and every province cannot have an elaborate system, it is too sensitive to operate and keep up with. I wonder if the minister could tell us what co-operation has been going on with other provinces and the Government of Canada in relation to that. I know it is a provincial responsibility, but to regulate the publicly traded companies in Canada, in the United States, and everywhere, is a very onerous responsibility, that we are seeing now is very important, when we have the kind of scandals that we have seen in the corporate world as well.

In general, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support the amendments to the Corporations Act. We would want to see some improvements, particularly in access to information from the public by access under computers. Perhaps the minister has plans that she has not yet revealed and can tell us about when she closes debate, and explain what protection is still there when we drop from a majority of 51 per cent directors, who not only must be directors of the corporation, but the act specifically says that a corporation cannot conduct business unless the quorum is represented by a majority of Canadian directors. That is now being done away with and what we are being left with is 25 per cent as the basic requirement of Canadian directors for a corporation. Would the minister explain how we are still protected in this area?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments on this particular bill, bill 4, regarding the Corporations Act. It may be unknown to a lot of people in this Province, but the registry of companies, of course, is a big generator of money to this Province. Everybody who has a mortgage, everybody who does a land transfer, and so on, the registry of companies and the corporations and everybody who deals with it, there is a lot of money associated for this Province, and the coffers, shall we say, of the Province benefit a lot from what goes on in the registry aspect, as referred to by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Corporations, of course, that carry on business here, whether they are incorporated in Newfoundland or they are a federal company that comes in, or they are some other company, from some other country even, that come in here, need to know what the rules are they are going to be expected to operate under in our Province.

It is nice to see, and we support the fact that this administration is updating, on a regular basis, the provisions of the Corporations Act, because times change, the way you do business changes, the players change, so you constantly need to be upgrading your laws and your Statutes to keep pace with what the changes are in the real word. So, it is nice to see that.

One question I do have, however - and I realize that the minister may not have any particular legal background to explain this to me, but maybe one of her colleagues or some staff, maybe the Minister of Justice or the Acting Government House Leader, might be able to provide some assistance in this regard. That is the issue of the percentage of directors being put at 25 per cent; the rationale for why, if you are directors of a Newfoundland company, it must be 25 per cent.

I did not get the full explanation, or I did not get any rationale in the minister's comments as to why we picked that figure of 25 per cent out of the air, and what is the logic behind it, because the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi pointed out quite right that all the Corporations Act does is create another legal entity body and says that you shall have certain legal rights. A person has rights, and now we have legal corporations that have rights under this act, but these legal bodies, of course, do not have a brain. Their brain is their board of directors, so it is very important as to what kind of brain a company has vis-à-vis its board of directors, and why are we putting a figure of 25 per cent must be Canadian? If we are talking about Newfoundland companies, we are not saying that 25 per cent of the board must be Newfoundlander or Labradorian. We are saying that it must be Canadian, and I am wondering why the significance of the Canadian factor, and what is the rationale for the 25 per cent factor? Because, if the issue is responsibility by the brain to the shareholders, and responsibility by the brain, the board of directors, to the Province, and to seeing that they comply with the Corporations Act, it only becomes an issue then of director liability as opposed to percentages or nationality. So, I would think you would address that issue vis-à-vis duties that you would put upon the directors vis-à-vis you must have insurance policies, or whatever, if you are a director.

I am not informed to utmost satisfaction as to why 25 per cent and why the reference to Canadian. What are we trying to accomplish by this particular provision, and what is the rationale behind this? Because, if it is an issue of liability, that is covered off by insurance coverages as opposed to distinguishing nationality. If a brain, a board of directors, of a Newfoundland incorporated company is going to be good for this Province, quite frankly, I do not care what their nationality is, and dealing in the global economy that we deal in, dealing in this global economy, yes, it is important, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that we cover them off for liabilities such as in the Westray case that we had in Nova Scotia, no question, and criminal liabilities and so on; but nationality, as long as you have good, credible, honest people of integrity on a board of directors, I could not care where they are from. I think to say otherwise might even be discriminatory. My concern is that they operate legitimately and in the best interests of this Province and by the corporate laws of this Province. So, I am wondering about the rationale in this day and age where we talk about free trade, where we talk about the global economy, why we are concerned about having Canadian directors; and, if that is an issue, why 25 per cent? Why not 50 per cent? Why not 51 per cent must be Canadian? Or 51 per cent must be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

I am sort of lost in the logic and the rational here. Before I can even say I agree with it - I am not saying I disagree - I just do not understand enough about it right now to say I do or do not agree with that particular provision. Perhaps the minister or some of her officials might provide the information, or some of the legally trained members opposite could give us a update as to the rationale behind that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously fascinated by the questions that have been raised here. I wish I had a copy of the Corporations Act here today, but I think in terms of the question of the 25 per cent of the directors having to be resident Canadians, I think it is because under the existing act the majority have to be. It was felt, as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile indicated, that because of the fact of the global economy, and because of the fact that we are now receiving in this Province many people, foreigners, who are coming here to live, at least to live here temporarily - the Humber Valley Resort is an good example of that. We have 320 people from England and Ireland, who have now taken up a residence in the beautiful Humber Valley, in the great District of Humber East, and these questions are now coming up more and more.

I know just last year there was a young couple from Switzerland who wanted to invest in the windmill business up in Labrador. There was a husband and a wife and another relative, and they were wrestling with this requirement, that a majority of the directors had to be resident Canadians. I think what they ended up doing was incorporating - not here in Newfoundland and Labrador - but incorporating in Nova Scotia.

I think it is time that we have to open up our Province for business. We want to attract these international investors. A lot of them who come in are small investors, small families, who want to create a business here, and we certainly do not need to have a majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians or Canadians having control of the corporation. The corporation will be here, you will be able to tax that corporation -

AN HON. MEMBER: It makes it consistent with other provinces, too.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, it makes us consistent with some other provinces.

I think it is important, if we are going to open up this Province and attract new business, that the Corporations Act has to be shown to welcome new investments. I congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation forward, and I certainly look forward to additional information with respect to the Corporations Act that would meet the objective of attracting more business for investment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, Bill 4.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 4)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to move to Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 10)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

This bill was actually initiated by the previous Administration and it is one that we agree with. This bill provides for an increase in the fee for the filing of a deed with the Registry of Deeds. The fee to register a deed document will go up to $75 from $50. This increase is to help to finance a new computer system for registering deeds and companies. In my capacity as minister I have already approved the fee increase for the companies registry. Fee increases for the deed registry required an amendment to the Services Charges Act, which we are debating today. This fee has not increased in many years. In return for the increased fee, users are getting a better system. The fee increase will pay for the new system over a three-year period. As I said, this increase was approved by the previous Cabinet. We, on this side of the House, agree with what the former Administration was attempting to do, and we look forward to their support on this amendment.

This is a simple amendment. It will delete the $50 figure and replace it with $75. Government is proceeding with this amendment because it is consistent with our commitment to provide more on-line services. This makes dealing with government easier and less time consuming. It also provides for better access to some services across the Province through the Internet. The current system is obsolete and in dire need of replacement. It is prone to breakdowns, causing frustrations for customers and staff.

Mr. Speaker, the government faces significant liabilities if documents are not properly recorded or are misplaced, or if transactions fall through between a systems failure prevents the timely registration of documents. This new system will allow for on-line searches of the companies registry and we look forward to the support of the members of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would be very difficult for me to speak against this bill. It was brought forward, I think, last year by the previous government and it was at the request, actually, of a lot of people who are doing business with that department. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say unfortunately, this now comes to me at a time when it is perceived as another fee increase - although, be it paying for a new and improved service - because just a month ago this very same department came out with an increase in fees totalling almost $15 million. I cannot help but think that these fee increases could certainly pay for -

MR. WISEMAN: What does that have to do with the bill?

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Member for Trinity North, it has a lot to do with the bill because any time government puts their hands in anybody's pockets it has to do with the public and the people that we represent. That is what it has to do with the bill. Then again, that needs commitment from a member to stand up and speak on behalf of its people.

When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I look at some very big increases there from zero dollars to $200; from $50 to $90 for a boiler pressure vessel. These are things that are going to have an impact upon the public safety and the safety of workers in our Province. I am concerned about increases because sometimes when you put increases in place they take away and detract from the very purpose in which you get inspections done.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when this bill was brought forward it was brought forward when this was not on the horizon, I can assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Taking an extra $15 million out of their pockets through the budgetary process certainly does not reflect why and where this came from. Bill 10 was brought in and put in place to, very simply, let the people who are using the computerized system at the division to pay for the service that they were looking for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I am going to say on this particular bill today.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, does amount to a 50 per cent increase on the basic charge. In this Province a lot of people think that there is no - we do not have a Land Transfer Tax. In Ontario, if you buy a house or a property you have to pay what is called a Land Transfer Tax. They actually call it a tax. In this Province we do not pay a Land Transfer Tax but we pay a fee to register a deed and to register a mortgage, which is also a form of a deed.

A person who is buying a house and has to mortgage the house has to pay a fee of - it used to be $50 plus $1 for an affidavit, plus $4 for every $1,000 of the value of the transaction. So, if you had a $10,000 transaction, which used to be a common transaction for buying a building lot or something like that, you would pay $50 plus $40 plus $1, which is $91. If you were buying a $100,000 house it would be $400 plus $50 plus $1, which is $451. Now, of course, with house prices going up, the $4 per $1,000 goes up. If you mortgage it and you have a $100,000 house with a $90,000 mortgage your actual fees to register the two documents runs you in excess of $1,000. So we do have a tax to transfer land and, as a member mentioned a little while ago in relation to the Corporations Act, it is actually the Registry of Deeds the probably raises more money than the Registry of Corporations because of the significant cost that is charged, not to recover the costs, I would suggest, but in fact as a form of government revenue. Now, governments have to collect revenue, and they collect it in various ways. It is actually called a registration fee but it really is a tax on the transfer of land.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we do have a situation where our Registry of Deeds went through a form of computerization a few years ago. I am not sure how far back they are now, but they are back a fair ways in computerization. I understand there was a bit of a backlog during the strike but it has been pretty well cleared up with some overtime since then. I know in the Budget there is a huge amount of money, I do not remember the figure offhand, to put into computerization for the Registry of Deeds. I believe, and I do not spend any time there any more, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that the system that they have down there right now is not exactly state of the art. I think that is fair to say. People who have used it, and the times, the very infrequent times, that I have tried to use it, I had to learn it all over again because it seems to have peculiarities all its own, that you have to be attuned to, in order to even use it at all. I wonder if the minister can tell us what state of progress there is with this. Are there any timelines developed as to when a new system might be in place? A lot of money goes through that department. It is a big revenue generator for government. From time to time you hear a lot of complaints from people who have to use that service, the searchers. They have their own committee, I understand, that advised the department on it. There is a lot of dissatisfaction expressed from time to time about the way that registry actually operates.

If we are just looking at a fee increase from $50 to $75, if it is for a particular purpose, it is sort of hard to begrudge that purpose if it is going to end up with a much more efficient system. It is different, I would submit, than the $25 million that is being collected in the numerous fees that this minister has had to defend since the Budget came down.

We saw in Nova Scotia their response to a need to balance their Budget. The Nova Scotia Government took some specific actions, some of which we urge upon this government here. For example, we urge the government in this Province to roll back the obviously unaffordable tax cut that was brought in a couple of years ago that benefitted primarily the high income earners. This government refused to do that. The Nova Scotia Tory government, in fact, rolled back a tax cut - in fact, rolled it back retroactively - that had been implemented and announced; and, in addition, they added a new income tax bracket for higher income earners to raise revenue. They also introduced some fee increases as well. Their fee increases - this is kind of interesting - which were considered kind of onerous, amounted to a total of $5 million of revenue over several hundred different fees. So let's get this straight now, because we had a number of fee increases. Twenty-five million dollars in a population which is about one-third the size of Nova Scotia, around there, so we have one-third of the population and we have five times the amount of fee increases, so almost a seventy-five fold increase, or difference, in the penalty imposed upon people for merely using government services, which I think is extremely onerous.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can explain that this is a different sort of thing. She tried to blame it on the previous government, but if she can tell us, when she closes debate at second reading - which normally the minister does, and I hope this minister will continue that practice of closing debate and refer to some of the comments made - if she can tell us what this money is being used for with respect to upgrading the computer services, or the computerization of the Registry of Deeds, and what the time frames are for the new system that hopefully will be more efficient and more accessible to the public in order to access deeds and other documents that her department registers and looks after in the public interest.

People who own land go and register their deeds for the purpose of making sure that this is notice to all the world that they are the owners of this land. That is the whole purpose in most cases, and it is a requirement of obviously mortgage companies and lenders, if they are going to loan you money on a piece of property, that they want to ensure that the deed is registered, that the mortgage is registered, and that they, in fact, have a good security on a piece of land, or property, they could sell to get their mortgage money if the person defaults.

These are very important commercial services that are provided, not only to the public to register their land and make sure they are the registered owners of the land, but also for commercial reasons, because people would not be able to build houses and keep that whole economy going, aside from building houses themselves, if we did not have an efficient system so that lenders would be confident in loaning money on the strength of a mortgage they are dependent upon, or that whole business is dependent upon, an efficient, official operating registration system, so that searchers can verify information to mortgage lenders, and that whole system rests on an efficient registration of deeds system and an efficient legal regime in that respect.

We are, through this bill, asking for an additional 50 per cent increase in the fee to be charged. Perhaps the minister can explain whether this is just simply a revenue measure, or whether this money is going to be used to make the system more efficient, and whether or not she has some time line with respect to that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't take a long time, maybe five or six minutes or so, to speak to second reading of this particular bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

As indicated by the minister in her introductory comments, the idea again here is that we are amending a specific section of the act to change a fee from $50 to $75. The point being made that lots of times if people want to argue that it is a huge increase, they would say it is a 50 per cent increase, which is pretty big in a Province where we are having a two-year wage freeze, zero, zero, because we have no money, in a province where people are paying record high prices for gasoline but are expected to live on a wage freeze and so on.

That is not the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of points that I would like to make with respect to it.

One of them, I think, is understood. It is obvious from what we have seen in the Legislature, that this notion of changing this fee from $50 to $75 has been around in the department and the registry for some time. I would take it that the minister would probably confirm that this wasn't one of the fees that was just decided in the Budget process. It was being contemplated even before the change of government. Part of it was that there is a system there that needs a bit of work, an upgrading, and the kinds of issues that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has spoken to. People who deal with real estate transactions, the lawyers and others, on behalf of mortgagees and people who are trying to get the land deeds and titles straightened out, would be very well aware of this, and they deal with this department of government on a regular basis.

The point that I will raise here, and I am glad to see the minister paying attention to it, because I think it is for consideration for the convenience of the government. This is one that we probably should have even considered ourselves. We didn't get to bring this legislation before the government changed, but I can tell you it was being discussed - and the minister would know that - some time ago.

Because of the fact that a fee is changing from $50 to $75, a debate in and of itself, but obviously an action that has been recommended for some time, if the fee is to change again in a couple of years time, either up or down, and if the government wants to change the fee, you have to wait until the House of Assembly is open, Mr. Speaker, you have to present a bill and we have to have a debate.

My suggestion would be this, for the convenience of the government: Why would we not consider, instead, having a clause in this bill - and I will ask them to consider this before we get to the Committee stage - to not reference the fee at all in Section 5, but to put in an enabling section that allows the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, allows the government without having to come to the Legislature to change the fee, if they see that it is fit.

Now, I am not sure that my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would agree with that because he would like to debate it in here, but I am saying for an efficient operation for the government, just think about what we are doing even here today. There are only a couple of times a year you can even get a chance to do this, and it might be deemed appropriate - and I am sure that all of the people involved in the sector, if they thought for sure they were going to get a system that was twice as good, twice as timely, better computerized, at your fingertips access to the Internet, not having to visit offices, and you get these registrations done, they might agree that the fee should be $100. They might agree that the fee was going to be $100. Then, if the government decides that, hypothetically, they might even have the agreement of everyone who is really involved with these kinds of land registry deed transactions, and in exchange for the better improved service the fee should probably be $100 instead of the current $50, it is now going to $75. Even inflation, you would think, over four or five or six years, anyway, might have a government of that day coming in saying: Well, the $75 is not enough anyway. It should probably be $100. It is not likely they are going to go to $80. It is not like you are going to come to the Legislature and have an actual debate to go from $75 to $80. It is, I suppose, remotely possible that there might be a debate in three or four or five years' time saying things have improved so much, we are so much more efficient, that we are recovering our cost now and we think we can do it for $50. We might want to go back to $50.

The point that I am making is this: Rather than have it in section 5, where it now says that every time the $50 is mentioned, whenever it occurs in section 5, that you take out the $50 and substitute $75, the thought I would just like to leave with the minister and the government, Mr. Speaker, for consideration is: Can it be accomplished by putting in another clause, take the fee out of section 5 all together, don't reference it, other than to say there will be a fee charged and the fee will be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet. At least, then, on a Thursday morning, or whatever day the Cabinet meets now, if they have decided, in the best interest of this organization, this service for people, and the efficiency of it, that it is better to change the fee up or down, that you would not have to wait six or eight months until the Legislature opens again even to talk about it. Because I think this was largely done - it was probably one of the ones we missed.

I know that some of the members would have been here, certainly the Acting House Leader today would have been here, a decade or more ago when we did a huge review of regulations, and I think we did one of those program reviews on regulations. Not only that, at that point in time, because I believe Dr. Kitchen would have been the Finance Minister, that was at a time in the Wells Administration when we did away with a couple of hundred fees. We did away with fees, nuisance fees, a lot of them. Actually, I think we might have raised the income tax a point or something at the time, but the idea from the business community and others, they said: Get rid of all these fees. We abolished, it must have been a couple of hundred, fees. Thinking back now, we maybe missed this one, that you could have picked up the revenue for this some place else, but it was seen to be something that had a business value. It was cost recovery.

I do not mean to belabour that, but I would leave it with the minister as a serious suggestion, Mr. Speaker, before we come back to the Committee, that it might be in the best interest of the service provided and the government, in responding to the people who use this service, to have the fee taken out of section 5 all together and an enabling clause saying the fee will be established by the Cabinet, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I leave that as a thought for consideration.

Maybe the minister can let us know. If they think it is a good idea, the minister, on behalf of the government, might want to move an amendment to this themselves. As I said, I cannot speak for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on this. Maybe he does not think that should happen. He likes the idea that you can debate whether it should be $50 or $75. For myself, I think that is an issue that you would not like to give to the Cabinet and have the fee go from $50 to $5,000. That is why there is an advantage in saying, well, at least make them come back here if you are going to change it by $1. I know there is a debate to be had with respect to that issue, but at least I would ask that it be considered again before the Committee stage. We will consider whether or not we will propose an amendment ourselves, as the Official Opposition. In any event, I would expect that the minister might consider whether or not the government might want to amend it just for convenience and for better reading.

One other thing I will just say for thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker, is this: The act shall come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I would not mind seeing the actual date here as to when it is going to happen, because we have been asking the Minister of Justice when he plans to proclaim the Freedom of Information Act, the new Privacy Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Stay tuned, he says. It has been passed for over a year. Voted on and passed in this Legislature for over a year, a new government with it in their hands for seven months, and the best answer we could get, because it said this, that one said the same thing, it said it would be proclaimed on a date to be decided by the government, by the Cabinet, the language being by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The best answer we can get is: Stay tuned - seven months later.

Maybe we do not need to put a date in because maybe the minister, in closing the debate, or in Committee, can suggest to us that the plan here is to actually proclaim this next week, next month, as soon as you can change the forms. When is it? Instead of a year's time, we have a circumstance when a piece of legislation that has been debated and voted upon in this House over one full year ago and it said that it shall come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

We have the minister today, the brand new minister, right out of the box, brand, spanking new, seven months studying it, pouring over it, pondering it, cannot give us any idea other than to stay tuned as to when it might actually become the law, Mr. Speaker.

I just raise that point for consideration by the government with respect to this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition was right about one thing. It is not something that I have confidence in. I know, having his experience in Cabinet, obviously he has much more interest in seeing Cabinet have more power rather than less. I have been in Opposition for over thirteen years now, so I have perhaps less confidence in Cabinet than I have in the House of Assembly and certainly would want to see these matters debated here in the House of Assembly, especially when we are looking at a 50 per cent increase on a matter that everybody who has to buy a house is required to go along with. He is right about that. I would not wholeheartedly support that. I think that it is fine that we are debating this here in the House, and we should continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The member is using the parliamentary procedure called Point of Order to further engage in debate. There is no point of order at all.

The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I notice there is great division between the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition on the issue of whether Cabinet -

MR. GRIMES: Almost come to blows.

MR. RIDEOUT: Almost come to blows.

- should have the authority to make those changes. Mr. Speaker, I have to say on the surface of it, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. It seems perhaps trivial that we have to come back here for this, but there is a reason I say to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition.

The Government of Ontario took unto itself some time ago, some years ago, what the Leader of the Opposition suggested, that in this case they would do it by regulation. It was taken to court and challenged and the legislation was struck down. As a result of that, we have no other choice, Mr. Speaker, but come back to the Legislature for this particular fee. Now, there are some fee increases, perhaps because they have never been challenged, I do not know, and we do it by regulation. This particular act was struck down in Ontario and the Ontario Government had no choice but to bring in an act and amend it from time to time. We have no choice, in other jurisdictions and this jurisdiction, but do the same thing. So, while I appreciate the - normally, like I said, it would be a good suggestion and I would agree to act on it in amending the legislation but that is the advice I have been given.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister also has a couple of comments to make before we close debate on the bill.

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

If the hon. minister speaks now she will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring it to your attention, that the cost to the government for the new computer system is $4.5 million. This fee is needed to finance a new computer system over a three-year period. We have not had any increases in the fees for many years. Basically, this will be an improved service. It is scheduled for some time in June to get up and running.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 10)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 10)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

For the information of members, we will begin at the top of the Order Paper, with Order 2, and work our way down. I think that is the undertaking I had from the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that we would go into Committee and begin at Order 2 and see where we are just before closing. Then we will rise Committee and report whatever progress, or lack thereof, we have made.

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

Is it pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the said bills as outlined by the hon. Acting Government House Leader?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

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

CHAIR( Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Order 2, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill 6)

CHAIR: Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991." (Bill 6)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, (inaudible) of the Opposition, if there is no objection and there is nobody wanting to speak on a particular clause, perhaps we could - which I know we have done in this House by agreement on many occasions - move Clause 1 to 3, whatever it is that is in the bill, and if anybody wishes to speak just say so and we will revert to whatever clause it is. Just for efficiency, if everybody will agree.

CHAIR: Members present have heard the suggestion. Is there any objection to us moving forward in that direction?

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 3. Shall clauses 1 to 3 of Bill 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Clauses 1 to 3 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Shall I report the bill carried without amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 6 carried without amendment.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Order 3, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 8)

CHAIR: Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act." (Bill 8)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in general, not on any particular - there is only one clause in the legislation. But I want to put on the record, at least, some concern that - we have had concerns raised from time to time about municipal governments and we have seen a number of, very unfortunately, a number of municipal officials being charged in the courts for taking money that were paid in taxes. We have seen that happen very recently. It has happened from time to time over the past - I can think of, perhaps, five or six cases over the last ten years where municipal officials, town clerks, or associates have been guilty of either stealing money from the town or falsifying books and records.

The fact that an annual inspection takes place does provide some sort of deterrent, and I know we do not necessarily need to have deterrents for everything. Obviously, the criminal law is there but the criminal law was there all along, Mr. Chairman. A lot of these municipalities do not have full-time people. They do not have - despite the significant work of the municipal administrator's association putting on training programs, and they do a terrific job. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would probably be quick to second that, that they do a lot of work in providing training and the professionalism of municipal officers is growing each and every year but there is a certain value in having oversight from the Department of Municipal Affairs. I am a little reluctant to wholeheartedly support the removal of inspection of books to the point where the minister does it when he believes that there is some need to do it, or considers it advisable or if somebody requests it. That seems to me to be letting down our guard a little bit. Perhaps the minister has an explanation as to why he feels it is okay to do that. He may have done that at second reading, I was not here for that debate, but are there any other safeguards that are being used in replacing that or does he have a plan or program that will ensure that if they are not inspected every year they may be inspected every second year, or certain sized municipalities would be inspected every year and certain other municipalities would be inspected less frequently?

I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we do not give people - sometimes there is a defect of giving people too much authority, giving people too much leeway, without any safeguards and it can lead to tempting situations for some people if they do not have any experience, if they are suffering financial difficulty. We have had situations, and it is kind of topical today, the Member for Labrador West asking questions about gambling. We have people involved in gambling addictions who may be in situations where they have access to funds, taxpayers' money being paid for municipalities, and that has resulted in large amounts of theft.

We do have circumstances that, I think, require at least a sense - on behalf of municipal officials - that somebody is keeping an eye on things other than the other volunteers who are sitting on the councils and have full-time jobs elsewhere.

I wonder if the minister could address that question and tell us why he feels, and why his department feels, that it is okay to loosen our control here, our oversight here, and whether or not he has any particular plans as to how to deal with this.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Mr. Chair, the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi makes a good point. With 290 municipalities here in the Province, and 175 local service districts, you are going to get some misappropriations sometimes and it has happened. Hopefully it will happen less in the future, but, generally speaking, the councils out there that are in place are very responsible councils, Mr. Chair.

The point with respect to this legislation, there are some nine inspectors within the department and they would have to do some 365 municipalities. It just cannot get done. The legislation cannot be met, so we are actually breaking -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hire more people.

MR. J. BYRNE: He says to hire more people. With the financial situation of the Province, it is something that is really not realistic. It is all right to say it, Mr. Chairman, but the situation is the municipalities themselves are maturing. They are putting financial accounting procedures in place. Municipalities will be done on a rotational basis in the future, so at any given point in time no municipality knows which ones will be inspected in a given year, Mr. Chair. That, in itself, we hope, will help alleviate some of the concerns that the hon. member brings up. Then again, I think we are in a situation where we have no choice but to go ahead with this legislation.

The former Minister of Municipal Affairs was in the House the other day, and this is legislation that the previous Administration started, did not get time to conclude, which is what we are doing on this side of the House. We really see that this is a necessary piece of legislation, and hopefully we will get the support of the House on that.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 8 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act." (Bill 8)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Order 4, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act. (Bill 5)

CHAIR: Bill 5, "An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act".

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, not to again belabour or delay it, I do not have proposed amendments or anything to that nature, but the issue that is here facilitates a piece of work that has been done several years now through, I guess, the Eastern Canadian Premiers and the New England Governors, with respect to being able to share facilities and resources in terms of dealing with emergency response, and without this amendment - my understand again, and I did not get a chance to do this at second reading - there was a limitation as to how many other jurisdictions the minister and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador could actually get legally involved with; because many of these things, when you are responding to emergencies, you require certain agreements to be in place, and you want to share resources and share personnel and things of that nature, but particularly when you go outside of Canada and deal with American States and all of them in a partnership in Eastern Canada see where there is some merit in pooling our resources and being able to help and assist each other.

My understanding as well, Mr. Chairman, and maybe the minister could just update us on this, is that I believe the final agreement with respect to making this and signing on to Newfoundland and Labrador - which this amendment is the last piece to do, we had signed on in principle - was done at the meeting in either Quebec City or Connecticut last summer, and I believe this year's meeting is here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is a piece of good news, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, the new government will be able to report, because there is a report with respect to this at each one of the annual meetings of the Eastern Canadian Premiers and the New England Governors, to see whether or not they have moved ahead with some of the joint commitments. I believe it is actually a good news piece for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to say, we have signed on in principle and we have now actually given the legislative approvals that are required for us to be able to participate in a partnership.

Just an opportunity for a minute or so, Mr. Chairman, to commend the minister on bringing forward the amendments that are here and so that the Premier himself will be able to go to the meeting that is right in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think probably right here in St. John's, in August month and it will be a good news piece whereby they will show the level of co-operation that can occur not only with other jurisdictions in Canada but with jurisdictions along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. I commend the minister and the department and the government in finalizing this piece so it can be reported at the meeting this year in August.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

The Leader of the Opposition is quite right, in the comments that he has made. This will allow the Premier to sign an agreement with the New England States and Eastern Canadian Provinces to basically share services in a state of emergency. As I said last week in second reading, we saw the situation here a few years ago with September 11 and the landing of the different jets from all over the world, at the airports in Gander, St. John's and Stephenville. Basically, I would see that if there is any potential for a great benefit from this agreement, it would be for Newfoundland and Labrador if we have an emergency. We all hope there will not be any emergencies, but, if it comes to pass that we are in a situation where there is an emergency, with the resources of the other provinces and the New England States and the United States, we would benefit quite handsomely from that. We all hope and pray, of course, Mr. Chair, that we would not have to access those resources.

The convention will be held in August of this year, in St. John's, and the Leader of the Opposition is quite right; at that point in time hopefully the agreement will be signed. By the way, I will say while I am on my feet, Mr. Chair, the previous Administration did start some things that were good and well-intended and we will continue on with those.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not many.

MR. J. BYRNE: Some people would say not many, but in this one, of course -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am only quoting, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Some would say that. I am not. This is a good piece of legislation and a good news story for the Province, Mr. Chair, and we hope that all will support it in the House.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 1 through 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 through 3 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act, carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Order 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 16)

CHAIR: Bill 16, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chair.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have any problem at all with Bill 16. It is a necessary piece of legislation and this side of the House supports this bill. I wouldn't want to hamper the progress that has been made here in the past half hour.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the Enacting Clause carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The Enacting Clause is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The long title is carried.

Shall I report Bill 16, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act," carried without amendment?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Bill 16 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 16 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Order 7, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry," Bill 9.

Hold on now, did I skip Order 6? I am sorry! I apologize! I am getting carried away with myself. We are making such wonderful progress here, I am getting carried away.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I meant to call Order 6, Committee of the Whole, on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," Bill 7.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 7)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 to 4 carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While I support this bill here, I am really feeling sad about supporting it today, and knowing tomorrow it is going to be gone. This was a very positive measure brought in by the former administration, that would enable the students of our Province to get an income tax credit when paying on the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan. This was a good move. It would cost the Province about $3 million, but $3 million that would end up in the pockets of young people in this Province.

It is interesting that the new Administration are predicting out-migration. Well, I expect this will be one of the causes of out-migration, because if students are here working in our Province at probably a lower paying job than they might have in Alberta, if they had some incentive to make a payment on their student loan and get an Income Tax refund, that might encourage them to stay around here a little bit longer. It might encourage them to be able to set up roots, start their families, build their homes, and do all of the things that people would do. By putting an end to this wonderful initiative, what you are doing is driving young people away.

Young people will tell you first-hand, that in order to stay here in this Province sometimes the hardest thing to do is to get a job when you have no experience. I have already seen here, during the Budget process, that you have been coming down hard on students in our Province. You have reduced the funding for summer jobs for students, you have cut it by one-third, which means that one out of three students in our Province are not going to get a job this summer. You have decided to cut out this legislation. You are going to pass it one day and cut it out the next day. The only time that students will see this legislation, it was on the Income Tax return they just completed, as of April 30, 2004. That is a good incentive and you are going to do away with it just like that.

I do not understand it, because this was an announcement by the former administration in our Budget last year. Of course, we were always in the habit of consulting with people. We decided to go back, after the approval was made and the announcement was made, to consult with students and see how they wanted to spend this $3 million. Of course, students told us that it would be spread fairly if people were able to claim a portion of the payment on their Income Tax return. You see, in your wisdom, that you do not want that, you do not want to make it easier for students to stay in this Province because you are actually going to cut out that for students.

Not only that, we had a double whammy two weeks ago when we heard that the College of the North Atlantic are laying off thirty-five people, and now that figure has expanded to fifty or more. Do you really think that education is a priority with this government? I do not think so. They have not demonstrated that it is.

What else have you done? You have consolidated the school boards. You did not consult with stakeholders. Not at all! That is not your policy to consult with anyone. You even said that if there are any savings you are not going plow it back into education, you are going to put it on the deficit. I would say to members of this House, there is a lot of money going to go on the deficit this year. We have about $60 million that is going to be realized during the public sector strike, the savings on employees' salaries, those who were out on strike for twenty-eight days. That is going on the deficit. How about all the layoffs that we are experiencing right now? Those salaries are going on the deficit.

I am hearing, from all over the Province, that the people who were seasonally employed in the past, such as Transportation and Works, are not even getting a call this summer to go to work. They are not even getting a call. I mean, that is rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where these jobs come from.

I know lots of people in my district who rely on seasonal employment to qualify for EI. These people are not even going to get a call this summer. You talk about the fabric of a community, when people who have been working with government for years and years and years on a temporary-permanent call-in list, are not going to be called this summer. What is that going to do to the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador? I think it is going to be a sad day.

When I am looking at the new government several months in office, what have you accomplished? What have you accomplished? As we witnessed here today with the eviction of my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I would say the biggest casualty of the new government has been the truth. The biggest casualty of the new government has been the truth. All we have seen in the past seven months is devastation. We have seen nothing positive at all. Absolutely nothing positive! All you have done in office in seven months - today is May 17^th, and on May 21^st you will have been in office seven months. What have you done that is positive for the people of this Province?

Today you had an opportunity to cap unusual tax profits in the sale of gas. You decided not to do that. Can you imagine the person who is out there today trying to make ends meet in a minimum wage job and the gas is up to $1 a litre, and you will not even consider capping the taxes that are being paid to the provincial government. Supposing it reaches the sky, you are not interested in capping that.

In fact, we talked today about people having addictions for lotteries. The Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board said, October 15, 1999, if he ever formed part of a government, he would ensure that the 5 per cent of all lottery revenue went back into providing addiction measures for those people. Today: Oh, no. I did not mean that. What they meant a year ago has no relevance today. What I am saying is that the truth, itself, has been the biggest casualty of this new government. Absolutely! By not looking after students, who will be around to take care of us as we get older?

We have a program, or we had a program - I am not sure if we have it anymore - for co-operative work term students where we would provide a meaningful employment experience and pay students while they were employed at a job within government. I am hearing lately that some of these jobs are unpaid. What I am also hearing is that the program that we had $3 million invested in for students with no experience, that were being hired had a chance to get a job and half of their salary was paid by government so that employers could take a chance on a new graduate without any experience. In most cases, once that new graduate proved that they were capable of doing the job, they, in most cases, got hired.

I am not hearing if this government has the same commitment to new graduates. Do they have the same commitment to co-operative work term students? I don't think so. They certainly do not have the same commitment to summer employment because we know that out of the fifteen programs that have been done in the past, one-third of that money is missing this year. Three million dollars less is going into student employment.

This particular Bill was really a different move. It was a great incentive. In fact, it was looked at by the Canadian Federation of Students as something new and different, something new and different that had not taken place across the country. By bringing in this tax incentive for post-secondary students it meant that people - it was more of an incentive to actually go and pay on your loan because you knew that by paying your loan off and getting rid of it early you would be getting part of the tax refund back. What do we see today? This government had to bring in this Bill. It is a requirement, because it was already in our Income Tax return.

Take someone with an income, say, of $30,000, and they had paid $1,000 on their student loan, they would get back, basically, $300. This particular plan was certainly designed for single parents, disabled persons and people struggling to make ends meet. By now deciding to eliminate this incentive you are certainly not putting money back into the economy of our Province. We all know that if people are debt free earlier, they will have more disposable income. The minister talks all the time about growing our economy, but do you know something? They did not provide any information on growing our economy.

I sometimes wonder whether or not the Premier who is touting the new Department of Business, why he did not want to show up in this House and be questioned by the members of this side, because do you know the real reason? He had nothing to report. The Premier had nothing to report, and that was the real reason that he did not want to come here in this House and be cross-examined on what he planned to do with his new Department of Business.

Now, he was so strong on wanting a new Department of Business he would not even stick with the regular advertising. He would not even appoint a deputy minister. He had to go out through the Public Service Commission and ask them to go out to a private consulting firm, a private consulting firm to go out and design an ad to go in The Telegram and probably all the papers across Canada, to solicit a fresh new deputy minister that had a broad horizon, and a broad horizon of knowledge and expertise so they could fill the ranks of being the deputy minister of the new Department of Business. He was not satisfied with the ordinary run-of-the mill advertising that the Public Service Commission would normally do. We all know the type of advertising that goes in The Telegram from the Public Service Commission. It is standard, it gets the job done, but our Premier wanted something new and flashy that was going to attract people from all over the county to apply. He did not care what the cost was. He did not care if the Public Service Commission used up all of their communications budget, as long as he got the cream of the crop of the people from across Canada to apply for the new job of Deputy Minister and Information Officer for the new Department of Business.

Unfortunately, the Premier could not be here to be questioned on the new Department of Business, because all he had to report was on a sheet like this. See? It was totally blank. He could not tell us how many people were going to be employed in that department. He could not tell us where the department was going to be located, whether it was in this Confederation Building or if it was up on the Northern Peninsula, or even if it was outside the Province. He could not tell us that. He could not tell us what his plans were for growing the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I ask if members would kindly keep their voices and keep their shouting down to a dull roar while the member is speaking. The Chair asks that the member be heard.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is clear that the members opposite do not want to hear the truth, because if they did they would be very quiet.

It is clear that the Premier - I wish he were here now in this House, because I would ask him many of these same questions - it is clear that he had nothing on his sheet to tell us, when he got into the House of Assembly, about his new Department of Business, because if he did he would have been overjoyed to come down and be cross-examined by the witnesses on this side of the House, to the new Department of Business; but, no, he chose not to be here. He chose not to reschedule. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, she already said herself that she could not answer the questions for the new Department of Business. Barring all of that, we do not know why he did not come and answer the questions. I, myself, would really like to find out what his plans are because the rest of the Province wants to know as well. After seven months of negativity, I can understand today why he jumped at the chance to be seen accepting a cheque from the federal government, even though it was for flood relief and other disaster relief. It was a payment to the Province on behalf of the federal government, which is normal in the course of things. We should be getting our money from the federal government if we paid in advance.

Do you know something? I can understand him rushing to get his picture taken with the federal member because, in his mind, he is making mammoth progress with federal-provincial relations, although we cannot see any evidence in the important things like equalization or the Atlantic Accord or any of these things that need to get work done on, or health. We cannot see any progress on this, so, you can understand why he wanted to run today and get his picture taken.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: I just wanted to leave one concluding remark, Mr. Chair, if I could?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think this is a very important bill, Bill 7. I only wish at this point that you would reconsider because you are doing a great injustice to students of this Province by approving it today and cancelling it tomorrow.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, not to belabour the passage of the bill in Committee, Mr. Chairman, because we, with our numbers, will vote against it because we think this is the wrong thing to do, but we understand that the government has decided to do this, in their wisdom, and they have the majority, and when it comes to a vote they will pass it, unlike the other bills that we just dealt with, where we concurred, and actually, if we were keeping the record as such, it will show that the other bills were passed unanimously. This one will not pass unanimously. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we may even have a division on the bill at some point so that the record will show that we did not support this notion in concept.

Again, my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, did a good job of describing the difficulty that we have with this. As this bill passes, it will be the death knell for an initiative that was touted just a year ago as being on the leading edge in Canada in terms of a government that was actually listening to students at the post-secondary level, recognizing the level of debt and indebtedness, and actually doing something significant and substantial about it, an actual benefit for the students themselves.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the program and plan that was in place, which is now changing as a result of this, there were to be decreased costs for post-secondary students in the university and at the public college and in the private colleges, but certainly in the public institutions, because of lower tuition, so the tuitions had decreased and have decreased by 25 per cent. The accumulative decrease is actually 27 point something per cent over the last three years. That is now being frozen at that level, but at least it is the lowest in Canada, so that benefit will continue on for students into the future unless this government makes a change in the years ahead. They have signalled they will not change that this year.

The issue then, Mr. Chairman, was: How do you give some kind of a benefit? How do you reach out to students who had gone through the early and mid-nineties when tuition in Newfoundland and Labrador had actually gone from the lowest in the country to the above mid-range, somewhere between the mid and the high range. They were not the highest in the country but they had moved from the lowest to above and beyond the norm or the mid-range. I know that for a fact, Mr. Chairman, because I was the Education Minister in an Administration that increased the tuitions. I know they went up because I was the minister responsible for education at the time, who had to explain to the people why we were doing it. Then, when I became the Premier, we decided to undo it because we wanted to reach out to students and encourage them to access post-secondary education at the lowest possible cost to them in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We handled the tuition piece which brought us to the lowest in Canada, which it still is because of the freeze that the government has done. We did have a group of students from about 1993 to 2001, actually, for some eight years, who had tuition increases every year. They had the highest student loans ever for students in Newfoundland and Labrador, so they were carrying the highest debt. We came up with a program that is now being repealed. That is what this legislation is doing; it is cancelling a program that was worth $3.1 million in total and it reached out to graduates who were currently repaying their loans. These are people with degrees, with diplomas, with certificates. They are out working here, or still seeking work, or elsewhere in the world, and they are paying off their loans. We tried to give them a break. With ourselves in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Canada, you can get a break in the Income Tax system for interest that you pay on your loan. That is available to every student in the country. It was only last year that we piggybacked our system so it would be identical to the federal one in terms of time frames and benefit in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is still available. We went a step further, as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We were the first and only jurisdiction in Canada to allow a tax credit for payments on the principal of the loan, not just the interest. This added benefit, which was $3.1 million in foregone revenue for the provincial government in the tax system, was a saving of $3.1 million for the most highly indebted students that we had in the last decade. This is the program that is being repealed.

Actually, I looked at the briefing note, the briefing note presented by the Minister of Finance on Budget day and concurred in by the Minister of Education explaining why. They said: Well, it is $3.1 million in total; but here is the language, Mr. Chairman, and it is very telling. It said - listen to this now - It is only about $135 on average for the student.

MR. REID: Tell that to a student.

MR. GRIMES: Well, tell that to the student. Now, that is the philosophy of it. You have a government centred in St. John's, in the urban centre, with a St. John's urban-based Cabinet that makes a decision that says: Oh, those students, by the way, who are carrying the highest debt in the history of the Province, they were going to get a tax break of $135 extra that they could keep to try to get on their feet and try to lower their - these are the people, by the way, carrying, on average, $25,000 to $30,000 in loans, in debt, the highest ever. They say: We concur. We want to reach out to them. We want to do something.

Then a program that they said was only going to save them, on average, $135, well, $135 was not even enough for them to save to licence their vehicle that they needed to get their first job. The very mindset - and that is what is bothersome about it, and that is why we will vote against it because it suggests that a number like that does not mean anything to this government, but $135 - it was just like the $5 on the pension cheque, Mr. Chairman. Remember the cutback that was going to happen with the pensioners, the indexing? It turned out they were going to cut the indexing in half, and the pensioners met the Premier outside the hotel down here and they said: Premier, don't you understand? You are taking $5 a month from us. It means a lot to us. We are on a fixed income. We are on a fixed income. Five dollars means something to me. He said: Oh, I didn't know it was $5. Nobody told me that. This is what I am saying: It is only $135. It was $60 for a pensioner. It meant a lot to them. So much so that they changed their minds and they gave it back. They gave it back.

Here are the most highly indebted students in the history of the Province. Last year, the ones who filed their tax returns before the end of March, I guess, before they ran into penalties - you had to file your income tax return before the end of March before you start to pay interest. You have to get it done by April 1. So, the ones who filed their tax forms for the last fiscal year, they get this benefit. They get the benefit of, on average, a $135 deduction on their income tax because the provincial government forgave some of the principle on their student loans along with the interest, and along with the interest that the Government of Canada was forgiving. This government saw fit to say: Enough of that, no more breaks for them, they are getting enough breaks.

My colleague pointed out, there is $3.1 million that is important to the government, they need it, but it is not important to the students, so they have to pay it. There is $3 million that has been taken from the student employment programs, foisted onto the backs of the same students; $3 million less. It was $9 million last year for student employment programs, this year it is budgeted at $6 million. There is $3 million more they are going to have to borrow and go in debt, whereas last year, at least, they were given the opportunity to work in the summer, work on one of their co-op terms, one of their internships, get paid, do some student employment things, and have to borrow less, and earn more of their own money. That is $6 million send back to the students to add to their debt bill.

Then they said: Oh, the university. We are going to give you a grant but you have to give us back $2 million. I guarantee you one thing, one way or another that $2 million is going to be passed on to the students. That is $8 million more that the students are going to have piled up in debt and student loans as a result of this kind of bill. Then, of course, there was another $2 million from the college. We have already seen the thirty-five layoffs which are now fifty-something. We will be dealing with this in Question Period some time, Mr. Chairman.

They have the programs being dropped in the college, Business Administration and Information Technology, which are ideal. The one group, by the way, that is licking their chops over that, is the private schools, because they are the perfect ones for the private training institutions to offer. The private training institutions are going to add on to their business administration courses and to their information technology courses because they are being dropped at the public college, because there is another $2 million in debt that is going to go to the students. That is a total of $10.1 million that the students would have had paid on their behalf, that they wouldn't have to borrow, last year. As a result of a bill like this particular bill, Bill 7, they are going to see that kind of bill passed right back to the students. All the good work that was done -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I conclude by saying this: We will vote against it, unlike the other bills, because all the good work that was done is being undone by pieces of legislation just like this that pass the debt burden right straight back to the students, instead of the government on behalf of all the people bearing more of the burden for them, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill is a bill that we brought in. The former government made an announcement in the Budget last year, they would not bring a bill to the House to put in place what they passed in the Budget. They passed this in the Budget last year, then they shut down the House and went home for the summer, called an election in the fall and never passed the legislation to put into effect what they said they were going to do in the Budget. In other words, they would not follow through. Unless we did this, they would not have had the deductions for the last tax year, 2003.

In November, upon taking over this position, I was confronted with whether we, as a government, should honour a commitment they made in their budget, or whether we should not. We had no obligation to do so. I wrote Canada Customs and Revenue Agency at the time and I indicated that we would, for this year, honour the commitment that they made in their Budget. We had no commitment to have to do so, but we did and we allowed this to go through.

When we brought down the Budget, when I read the Budget in the House this year, what we did was, we moved to help low income people. There is $3 million in this particular bill to the effect. We brought in and announced, for low income people - we have a bill here in this House - to put almost $5 million, almost double what is in that bill, to help people whose earned income is below $12,000, and they pay no provincial income tax. Under $19,000 is a family to pay no provincial income tax; to allow child benefit to be indexed to inflation in our Province; to allow the seniors benefit to be indexed to inflation here, to help these low income people. There are about 30,000 low income people who are going to benefit by a bill that we have in this House that puts almost double the money into benefitting low income people.

What we did, Mr. Chairman, is, we put a bill in to do the work that they announced they would not do themselves. Then they stand here and they try to pretend: Look what we did for students. It is a sham what they did. They said one thing, they paid lip service to it, and would not put into action what they paid lip service to. They did not have the gumption. They could not get out of here fast enough last year, left a trail of legislation on the books, never even passed the borrowing bill for their Budget for last year. We have to bring a bill to this House to borrow money for their Budget for last year, a loan bill.

That is what they did. They left it in shambles, they left the Treasury in shambles, a billion dollar debt, head over heals in debt, and we will be paying that, and our grandchildren will be paying that, for generations to come.

What we are going to do: We are going to get this House in order, we are going to get rid of that cash deficit, we are going to stop building debt on top of debt, and we are going to have more money to deal with education, health care and essential public service in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Something for which the former government would not accept responsibility. All we hear is lip service, no action. It is shameful that they had the gall to stand up in this House, to stand up and talk about something they would not put and stand here last year, on this side of the House, and pass. They ran out the door so fast to stay away from the heat in this House of Assembly. We are here now, we will be here next week and the week after, we will be here as long as we need to be to pass the legislation that we want passed, that they did not have the gumption to bring to the House last year, piece after pieces of legislation that should have been done. We are going to do it. We are not going to be worried about the public outfall on legislation. If it is good legislation and proper, we are gong to do it, we are not going to run and hide, and we are going to live up to our responsibilities, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I rose last week in this House on a point of order, that the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board totally brushed off and left the impression here with this House, and for the people of this Province, that we neglected our duties in not bringing forward this Bill 7. I want to say again today, that Bill 7 could not be passed with the ordinary Budget stuff that went ahead last spring.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to her point of order.

MS THISTLE: Yes, the point of order is: After the Budget announcement was made last spring we went back to the very users, the students of this Province, and asked them how they wanted the $3 million spent. After several periods of consultation with students, they came back and told us, this is how they wanted it done. Normally, what would have happened -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member if she would get to her point of order.

MS THISTLE: Normally, what would have happened, in the fall, that legislation would have been done. As a matter of fact, I do not know why the new government never opened the House of Assembly in the fall, because if they did -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: - this piece of legislation would have been passed.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair rules there is no point of order.

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: If the Chair has already ruled, Your Honor, then that is fine.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 of Bill 7 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I would just like to have a few words on the matter if I might, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I guess maybe not technically understanding procedures, Mr. Chairman, she did not need to stand on a point of order. She could certainly stand and make her point at any time she wanted to at this Committee stage, and take her ten minutes and speak as long as there was an intervening speaker. I would certainly like to have a few words, if there is no problem with the Acting Government House Leader in that regard.

The only comments I would make is that it was raised last week in second reading when this bill was brought forward by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, and I think quite rightly. The Minister of Finance tried to put the spin on it that the former Administration would not proceed with this bill and did not proceed with it. The bottom line was, Mr. Chairman, and the truthful position of it was that when this commitment was made the former Administration went out to the student body, went out to the people who had the loans and said: What is best for you? Tell us, we want to do this. We are prepared to commit to such a program but tell us, what is the best way that we can maximize it for you? That happened, of course, after the Budget last year. That happened throughout the spring and the summer. Then, of course, an election got called. The former Administration lost that election. That is why this did not materialize in the form of legislation. It could only have come back into this House in the fall session, which never occurred because the new Administration decided not to open the House in the fall. That is the truth of what happened here in terms of why this legislation was not done last spring. You do not need to sugarcoat it or put any other spins on it.

Speaking to the bill itself, if this program is so good that the Minister of Finance is up on his feet today trumpeting why it is so good, and how gracious and good he is to the students of this Province by allowing them to have it for 2003, why wouldn't he do it beyond 2003? Why give them a pat on the back and a $135 benefit, bonus, refund for 2003, but on the other hand smack you up the side of the head and say we are taking it away in the future? So don't try to take credit for something. There are obviously other reasons, and I question the reason why this Administration - I do not know the reason why, but I do not think we have been given the real reason as to why this Administration is going along with this for 2003. I would submit that it has a lot more to do with this Administration keeping a commitment of the former Administration and keeping a commitment to the students. I think if someone were to delve into this and get to the bottom of it they would find out that the only reason we have this piece of legislation here is because there were probably some written commitments made that could not be backed out of, if the truth were to be known as to why we are here with this.

So, I do not think the minister should be up trumpeting how good he is for the students of this Province who bear debt loads and then on the same hand -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. If he needs extra time it is not a problem, but I am completely unaware of any written commitments. When it was brought to my attention, we proceeded. There was no advice given or anything about any written commitments or a commitment to proceed with it. If he knows information on that, I certainly was not made aware of that. I would not want to leave an impression here in the House that we brought this in because we had no choice. I am unaware of that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the minister to get to his point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: As the minister responsible for this bill, I would have been made aware of that. If the Opposition House Leader has anything to that effect, I think it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It imputes motives.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It imputes motives here, Mr. Chairman, and that is wrong in this country to ruse this House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair rules that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I just want to conclude. All the people of this Province want and need is for people to tell them like it is. You do not have to fudge it. You do not need to sugarcoat stuff, and that is not imputing motives to anybody. For whatever reason that Administration, this government has decided that we are going to put the axe to this program which was intended to benefit students. Now, you can sugarcoat that ten ways to Sunday, but the bottom line is these students are not going to be able to avail of this program anymore. This is not a great act that we are passing here in this Legislature that is intended to have great beneficial future consequences. This is intended to get past 2003 and then shove it. We are not into this anymore. That is what this is about. That is the truth of it. We are taking away from the students of this Province, who have a debt load, the benefits of this program. Now, you cannot sugarcoat that anymore. That is all the people and the students of this Province need to know. We have taken a program away from you. You are not going to get the benefits of paying towards your principal on your student loans, as was intended and committed by the former Administration.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to set the record straight. There was no program in place before this bill to give any credit to anybody. This is giving the program for one year. Prior to that, there was no program. They did not have this credit. We are giving the credit here for one year. So the House Leader is absolutely wrong when he says -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is absolutely wrong when he says it is a program being taken away. The program never existed before. The Leader of the Opposition said it was an interest program. The Leader of the Opposition said there was no program in place. We announced it last year. He said, we looked at it over the summer, they have indicated. This bill puts the program in place for one year, that was never there before; there was no program existed. This is the program, that this bill is giving students a break for 2003. They never had it before and they would not have it only for we brought this bill to the House.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought we might, for a change, be able to have a sensible debate about this. Mr. Chairman, the problem is again, the Minister of Finance, who has now changed from, I understand it in a common vernacular, from being Mini-Me to meanie-me. Meanie-meanie-me, they are calling him on the streets.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would refrain from using such language. It is certainly unparliamentary to be hailing insults back and forth directed at any one member. I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would be kind enough to keep his language parliamentary and refrain from calling other hon. members here by other than their own names, or the names of the district that they represent.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand there has been no ruling with respect to that particular language. The rules of the House are pretty concise and clear about whether certain language is parliamentary or not, and I understand that. I cannot be responsible for what people all over Newfoundland and Labrador are calling the Finance Minister. That is not something that I created or something I did.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is this, and we have a perfect example of it here again today. Here is where you get the circumstance where we, as an Official Opposition, are in a position where you cannot believe a single word the Finance Minister says. Now, that is serious for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman. It is why again, when he rose to speak, I left the Legislature again, because he has been so bad and so consistent in being not believable. I will demonstrate how he just did it again, that he is not believable, Mr. Chairman. Here is the point. He is trying to say that there was no program. Well, maybe there was no program in his mind, because that means, if that is the case, than what he is saying as the Finance Minister is that when he stood up and read the Budget, read his blue budget book on Budget day, and when he read certain commitments, that they were not commitments of the government. That is what he is trying to say. He is nodding his head. He just said yes, that is what he is saying. Well, now he is nodding his head the other way saying that is not what he is saying. Typical. Now he just said both things inside of two seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: He nodded in agreement and then he nodded in disagreement. The point made again, Mr. Chairman.

The fact of the matter is, he is embarrassed that I acknowledged that. He will get up, I am sure, and speak again. The fact of the matter is this: When the Finance Minister, if the Finance Minister is credible for the government, stands up and reads on Budget day that there will be a new tax credit for students, and it will be a tax credit that actually gives them a credit for the principal paid, not only the interest - every single soul in the Province, Mr. Chairman, says the Finance Minister said that - that means the government is committed to it, that means the program is in place now. It might take a little while to do the paperwork, but nobody expects that you are not going to do it. Nobody expects that you are going to stand up and read in the Budget Speech that you are bringing in a new tax credit.

One of the bills that is further on the Order Paper is, we are going to revise the law to change the tobacco tax. He read in the Budget that we are going to change the tobacco tax. Are the people in Newfoundland and Labrador now assuming that the taxes on tobacco are gone up or not? He understands that they assume the taxes are gone up because the Finance Minister said it. It might not have happened right that day. I believe, in fact, the price of tobacco has gone up in the Province, even though we have a bill that is here, Mr. Chairman -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: I agree. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying makes a lot of sense for the simple reason that they did not announce it in the Budget. They said they had to go out and consult and then decide on the program. He is adding credence to what I said. He is absolutely false. It was not said in the Budget last year, so it was not a program until you consulted and did your work. You have already admitted that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, every single time he speaks it only, again, builds the credibility gap. What the Minister of Finance just described was this: We, as a sensible government, who believed in consulting with people, announced the program. Here is the truth of the matter, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: They want to make fun. They want to make light of putting $10 million worth of debt back on the students of the Province, Mr. Chairman. Here is the Budget 2003 announcement, Mr. Chairman, because it was read: Tax incentives for post-secondary students read in the Budget.... Then, of course, rather than say we know all the answers, what we said, as a sensible government that believed in consultation, was: Before we put the final details of the tax break in place, we will go and consult the students. We will take some time to consult the students, but I will guarantee you one thing, they will have a tax break. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is this, the Minister of Finance knew that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: They can interrupt me now. I will just get up again later on for another ten minutes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard in silence.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, again, just gave misleading information on a point of order to the House. Now, for what purpose? I do not know, other than to prove that you cannot believe him. He tried to describe an announcement that was read in the Budget last year. He said it was not done in the Budget. Go get the Budget document. It is in his own department. It was read by the Minister of Finance: There will be a new tax incentive program for students. Then there was an actual separate release put out. We said: We will consult with the students before we finalize it. Then he suggests: No, the program never existed. Now, it most telling because that is how he operates. Because remember what we have had. This is the Minister of Finance who read a statement in the Budget - and we will see who got caught - that said the hospital in Gander is cancelled. That is what he read. Then he turns around and has the Premier go to Gander and say: Oh, it is not cancelled. Do not believe what the Minister is Finance said. It is just on hold.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Now, that is not how we operated, Mr. Chairman. That is how they operate and that is what is causing the problem and that is what is causing the problem with this particular bill.

Now, let me say it again. All the Minister of Finance has done is, again, shown - as my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans pointed out - that with this government and largely through this minister, the biggest casualty with this government has been the truth. Here is a perfect example of it again, that he would stand up and try to suggest that it was not stated in the Budget. It was absolutely stated in the Budget last year. We put out the news release saying: Before we do the details, we will consult with the students. We consulted with the students. This bill was ready to do last fall. My colleague, the Opposition House Leader, pointed out there was no session last fall -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - because this government did not have one. This has been ready for a year. There is a program that this government is cancelling. They are cancelling it, is what they are doing, Mr. Chairman, and he will get up and try to make people in Newfoundland and Labrador believe that he is creating a program. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am telling you, it galls me right to the very taps of my shoes to have to stand here and sit here and listen to that kind of misrepresentation. You can point your finger all you like, I say to him, Mr. Chairman, and make a fool of yourself all you like because you have done it consistently.

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't go getting mad.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Yes, and I am getting a little angry because I do not appreciate what you are doing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not appreciate what you are doing to the students with this bill, and I do not appreciate what you are doing to the credibility of members of the House of Assembly who are supposed to come in here and tell the truth and expect to be believed. Why would I not get a bit angry, I ask you, Mr. Chairman! I will tell you again, the more I hear of him the worse it gets. I tell you, I will not be sitting here listening to the least credible minister of the Crown that I have seen in fifteen years in Parliament. He is an absolute disgrace, Mr. Chairman, and you can take that to the bank, I can guarantee you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bills 6, 8, 5 and 16 passed without amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and directed him to report that Bill 6, Bill 8, Bill 5 and Bill 16 have been passed without amendment.

When shall these reports be received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, reports received and adopted.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 6, Bill 8, Bill 5 and Bill 16 ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just before we rise, I would like to take this opportunity to advise members that the Social Services Committee will meet in the House this evening at 7 o'clock to review the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services.

Tomorrow, it will meet at 9:00 a.m., and again I think it is here in the House, as best I understand, to review the Estimates of the Department of Justice, and tomorrow evening at 7 o'clock to review the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I now move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House, on its adjournment, do adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock, on Tuesday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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