May 25, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 35


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon, the Chair would like to welcome some visitors to our gallery. We have, from Dunne Academy in St. Mary's, in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, twenty-two Grade VII students with their teacher, Mrs. Marjorie Gibbons, and their bus driver, Mr. Stan St. Croix. We welcome these young citizens to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: We also have Mr. Herb Brett, the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, and some other municipal leaders from various municipalities throughout the Province. We welcome Mr. Brett and his municipal colleagues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: We have Statements by Members. We have two members, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank and the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to rise in this House today on a point of privilege. This action is not something I take lightly, but it is an action I deem to be necessary. I was told a long time ago that in politics the main task is to always define or be defined. I would like to have a few moments to define what I believe to be a serious beach of my rights and privileges as the elected Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

Mr. Speaker, a little over eleven years ago I was first elected to this House. Throughout those years I have seen and witnessed the good, the bad and sometimes the ugly. In the partisan political environment that we are in, you expect to receive the occasional negative comment to your person. They say in politics you have to develop a thick hide. I believe, as an individual, I can withstand, and have withstood, a serving of it all.

When something is said about me personally I sometimes laugh it off, say something back in jest to the person or, in most cases, forget about it and move on.

On Thursday, May 20th, Mr. Speaker, I witnessed an all-time low. Throughout the day, as the regular business of government was proceeding, the conversation across the House grew more personal than I have ever seen before.

The Member for Bellevue verbally attacked me all day long from his seat on the opposite side of the House. He made several comments across the floor towards me about an incident that occurred in my family over a decade ago.

Mr. Speaker, I am not perfect and neither is my family. I have five brothers and a sister and two wonderful parents that I love and respect. I have a wife and three children that I love, respect and honour, and give God thanks for each day.

Mr. Speaker, members of my family, as I am sure all others, have made mistakes and have paid dearly for them. However, as an elected politician, I should not have to listen to it here in the House of Assembly. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am fair game, but that is where it ends.

Mr. Speaker, again on Thursday, even though the comments and bantering from the Member for Bellevue bothered me, I tallied it up to the usual frustration with his role here in the House since last fall. But, then, Mr. Speaker, something happened that I did not expect or appreciate.

Immediately following the rising of the House on Thursday afternoon and your exit from the Chamber, I was packing up my briefcase and preparing to leave my desk, when the Member for Bellevue crossed the floor of the House of Assembly, came right up to my desk, and continued his verbal attack on myself and my family.

Mr. Speaker, the member then said to me, "I guess you and your father are going over to St. Pierre this weekend, are you?" I said to the member, "You're treading on thin ice - please get out of my face." Then the Member for Bellevue said, "We are going to take you down", and stepped back towards the exit door behind me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at this time, that I have sat here in this House, in this seat, since November of last year. I have never seen the Member for Bellevue use this door to enter or exit this hon. House. He always uses the main door or one of the doors located on his side of the House.

To continue, Mr. Speaker: As I was preparing to leave the House, the Member for Bellevue stood and blocked the exit. He then said, "You are not leaving until I am finished with you." I said to the member again, "You are treading on thin ice."

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue then put his fist up to my chin and said, "You, your father and all of you should be in jail." Mr. Speaker, I pushed his hand away from my face and said to the Member for Bellevue, "You are a lucky man to say that to me on the floor of the House of Assembly." I then turned around and left by the exit at the other end of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, to say I was upset would be an understatement. This desk is my place in the House of Assembly, this desk belongs to the people of the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and I do not believe any other member has the right to approach it or come near it with what I believe was the intent of the Member for Bellevue. I take great exception to that and believe that action alone was a breach of my privilege here in the House of Assembly. Then, Mr. Speaker, to be followed by the blocking of the doorway through which I enter and exit the House on a daily basis and to have a clenched fist put up in my face, is definitely, in my view, an affront to not only me, Mr. Speaker, but indeed all the members of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe that my father and my family, or any family of any member of the House of Assembly, should not be used to even cheap political scores or to aggravate or agitate other members.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I admit to brushing away from my face the arm of the Member for Bellevue, and I apologize to him, to you and to the House of Assembly, and all members of the House, for that.

Mr. Speaker, I serve notice today, I became involved in politics knowing full-well that my life and my actions would be in the public domain, but my family are not here and neither should they be. So, to the Member for Bellevue and all others, hands off!

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I make no comments towards the comments of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, other than the fact that it is my understanding that the Speaker has this matter under study at the present time based upon events that were reported to you following last Thursday's sitting. I do not believe it is a point of privilege that has been raised.

The only comment we will make at this time is that, we would leave it to Your Honour's consideration based upon the information you have and what has been reported to you to date. We certainly don't consider the comments of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to be a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is very cognizant of the happenings that occurred after the adjournment proceedings on Thursday, May 20. The Chair has had dialogue with a number of members and with some of the leadership within the House. The Chair will take the matter of the point of privilege under advisement and will report back to the House after there has been dialogue with the officers of the House and with the leadership of the House. Hopefully, that can occur within a reasonable length of time.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I rise today on a point of privilege that is following a point of privilege that I made on May 17. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of privilege with regard to a public document that I received through Freedom of Information from the Executive Council of government that contained less than factual information, inaccurate information, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Transportation and Works did make a statement in this House on May 18, in which he apologized for the release of inaccurate information under Freedom of Information, Mr. Speaker. I rise today, because it is the first opportunity that I have had since the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has been in the House of Assembly since that date.

I wanted to rise today, Mr. Speaker, on another point of privilege simply because I feel that my privileges as a member were violated by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The minister issued a press release, Mr. Speaker, attacking my credibility by questioning the source of my information, saying it was false and inaccurate - that is what he has stated in his release - when indeed, Mr. Speaker, this information was obtained directly from his department and through his executive, through the Executive Council under the Freedom of Information.

Mr. Speaker, I did get a call from the Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who admitted to me that the false information did indeed come from the minister's department, and that it was sent to Executive Council. They were not aware that the information would be forwarded to me under Freedom of Information, and he did apologize, as a bureaucrat, for having put out the false information.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation to be an hon. gentleman and I am sure that the press release that he issued attacking my credibility would not have happened if he had indeed known all the facts, but I feel that my integrity has certainly been questioned, and my ability to represent issues in the public and in the House of Assembly.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to do the honourable thing and to apologize for the statements that he issued in his press release.

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

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

To the point of privilege: First of all, we believe it has been dealt with, but let me review the facts as they are. This issue that the member has raised deals with the Labrador Travel Subsidy Program, if I am correct. That program itself was established in 1969, Mr. Speaker, and it is currently administered by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The program itself provides funding to offset travel costs for Labrador residents participating in provincial sport and culture events on the Island, and interprovincial competitions in Labrador.

The MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, as she has indicated, issued a press release on May 12, 2004, indicating that the subsidy was reduced by $10,000 in Budget 2004. On May 14, my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, corrected this statement in a press release and indicated that Budget 2004 maintained the $427,000 for the program, as allocated in the previous fiscal year.

The member has since indicated that she obtained the information, as she has just indicated, from the Budget Details and Statistics, March 30, 2004, document released by the Executive Council. It is questioned again today why inaccurate information was released on the program.

Mr. Speaker, I do know, because I have spoken to the Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that he has spoken to the member himself and explained that departmental officials had provided inaccurate information to the Executive Council prior to the release of the aforementioned document.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, which was also explained to the member by the Deputy Minister, was unaware that the member had obtained the information via the aforementioned process, and that the inaccurate information was contained in the document when he issued the press release on May 14, 2004. The correct allocation of $427,000 is referenced under Labrador Operations, Grants and Subsidies, on page 166 of the Budget Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that, while the member may believe that her privileges have been breached because of information that was provided in a document, and some of the information was inaccurate and that was admitted to in the House, was determined by the House, which it was, but the document that foreshadows all of that, Mr. Speaker, the only document that really matters is what was tabled six weeks before the member's release, and that is the Budget Estimates. I reference for the member, on page 166, under Labrador Operations, Grants and Subsidies, for the program that was in question, the amount to be voted upon is $427,000.

There is no breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There was some mix-up and fool up with respect to information that was released. That has been admitted to by the House, by the government which apologized to all members, and I think it is time to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think this is a case of - first of all, I don't think it has been ruled on. We dealt with a ruling in this House last week that dealt with a breach of privilege, or an alleged breach of privilege, from several ministers who had made several comments based upon a certain document that was released which was proven to be infactual.

The commentary that I recall you ruling upon was that, it was indeed satisfactory for the Premier, being the first minister, to apologize on behalf of all ministers. That is my understanding of what the ruling was. That does not take away, I would submit, from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair being able to raise a point of privilege, that her privileges were personally, privately, affronted by the actions of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

We do not need to get here and try to weasel out about what was said in the documents or not said in certain documents, and this Budget document speaks for itself and whatever. We are here because the perception was left in the public by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, albeit unintentionally, albeit with no deliberateness, albeit with no intent to malign anybody, particularly the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that impression was left out there that she did not know what she was talking about.

All this member is saying is, I just asked the minister personally, not under the guise of parliamentary rules, not under the guise of I can talk my way out of it because some other document leaves another impression, but simply a matter of privilege, a matter of personal actions between two members of this House with one saying to the other: I was not pleased with what you did, I appreciate that what you did was misleading, and I would also appreciate it if you would simply get up and apologize for what happened and we move on.

I think she does have a valid point of privilege, I do not think it is a big issue, and we can easily move on by not trying to colour this matter, but simply having an honourable exchange of the complaint and the apology by two members of this hon. House.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

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

I did not intend to rise to this today but I think I should. My colleague explained it quite well, how this all unfolded. I do say to the member, just days before her hon. colleague, the critic for Tourism, went through the entire Estimates with no questions raised whatsoever, my Deputy Minister did call the member and explain to her that I did not know that information.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was apologized for by the government, the right things were done, but if it takes an apology from me to the member, whom I have known for a long time, so be it, I apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe the Chair will declare this matter satisfactorily resolved.

Statements by Members.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Steven King of Grand Bank, presently working as a Petroleum Engineer in Red Deer, Alberta. Steven shattered the provincial power lifting record in the 100 kilogram junior division in the Province of Alberta.

In his first ever competition, Steven gave an outstanding performance setting incredible records with a total weight of 1,421 pounds in power lifting - 308 pounds more than the previous provincial record.

Steven's squat of 518 pounds, 347 pound bench press, and 556 pound dead lift, saw him outperform his competition. He was declared the second best lifter overall in a field of more than 100 lifters in all weight categories.

Steven comes by his ability naturally. His father Jim and brother David are both weight lifters. David excelled in Olympic weightlifting.

Steven's parents are Jim and Joanne King of Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Steven King.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the Town of New-Wes-Valley. The municipality has recently engaged in discussions to develop a "Twin Town" connection with Nanortalik, Greenland.

The southernmost town in Greenland, Nanortalik, has a population of 2,500, and like the people of New-Wes-Valley, the residents of Nanortalik are progressive and eager to continually develop and improve their home. With the assistance of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, a connection was established between the two towns and this past weekend the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer from Nanortalik visited New-Wes-Valley. I had the privilege of meeting with these gentlemen on Friday and Saturday and discovered that, although separated by geography, we shared much common ground.

The people of Nanortalik are interested in initiating student and teacher exchanges, and their business community is extremely interested in developing commercial links with the New-Wes-Valley area. Based on this initial meeting I am very hopeful that a strong and productive relationship will be created between these two towns.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the members of the council and the residents of New-Wes-Valley. This progressive municipality provides us with a wonderful example of the opportunities for development and growth that exist in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to announce changes to the Air Pollution Control Regulations that will help reduce air pollution and improve air quality in our Province.

Government is committed to enhancing air quality and protecting human and environmental health. Mr. Speaker, strengthening our air pollution control regulations to meet a higher environmental standard demonstrates that commitment.

The new regulations include a 2 per cent annual limit on sulfur content in heavy fuel used in the Province and a provincial sulfur dioxide emissions cap of 60,000 tonnes per year. These new standards address some of our major sources of air pollution in the Province and will result in a 20 per cent decrease in local sulfur dioxide emissions from 2000 levels. The sulfur dioxide emissions cap and limit on sulfur content in heavy fuel come into effect January 1, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, companies that release more than twenty tonnes of sulfur dioxide a year must prepare an annual report for government outlining fuel usage, fuel sulfur content and sulfur dioxide emissions. All companies must follow the same environmental standards, and provisions

have been made for penalties for non-compliance. The regulations were developed in consultation with industry, and government anticipates full compliance.

Government is committed to improving standards under which industries operate as we move forward in our efforts to protect and ensure a clean environment. As a result of changes to our Air Pollution Control Regulations there will be less industrial emissions released into the atmosphere, thus reducing pollution.

Mr. Speaker, there are also new standards for incineration, including a ban on open burning of such items as tires, plastics and treated lumber. The ban on burning, other than at a licenced facility, is effective immediately. The ban will extend to all waste disposal sites in 2005.

Changes to the regulations also give government the authorization to establish vehicle emissions standards. Mr. Speaker, many provinces are moving toward some form of mandatory testing for vehicle emissions, and our new regulations will allow us to introduce vehicle emissions standards at some point in the future.

Mr. Speaker, improving our Air Pollution Control Regulations is in line with government's Blue Book commitment to a health environment and achieving a high quality of life for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Government will continue to take action to address air quality in the Province and demonstrate its overall commitment to protecting and enhancing the environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate receiving an advance copy of the minister's statement. It certainly is good news to see anything that will enhance and improve our air quality, for humans, of course, for our environment, and the overall health of everyone.

I guess we are still in the CRA polling period, and I certainly say hats off to this minister. He is doing his share to see that you get a good result, this being about his third or fourth Ministerial Statement since the poll started.

Anyway, we also look forward, in addition to these good news announcements, Mr. Speaker, to hearing something from the minister on such issues as the New Harbour dump, for example, which was committed to be cleaned up. We would also appreciate hearing from the minister as to what this government's role is, if any, in the federal protocol being prepared for our coastal marine waters.

I understand, in the news today even, there is a consultation going on between the federal Department of Environment and the federal Department of Transportation to design a protocol as to what would happen vis-á-vis discharges in our oceans and so on. This is a very important issue. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier had taken us up on our offer last week, vis-á-vis the all-party committee to draft a position paper on where we stood, we probably would have these very same items included in an all-party resolution, which is indeed very important.

We look forward to hearing from the minister in the future, as to what he intends or where he is going to go with these other important issues concerning our environment also.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are glad to see that the minister's department is taking action on air pollution, particularly sulphur dioxide emissions. I will say, however, that one of the biggest contributors to this is the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Thermal Generating Plant in Seal Cove which has emissions in excess of 20,00 metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide, in addition to a 750,000 metric tonnes of sulphuric acid every year. These are significant contributors to pollution in our environment and something has to be done, seriously, to do something about that.

We also, Mr. Speaker, look forward to this government changing its position that it had in Opposition, of opposition to the Kyoto Accord, and trying to, in fact, get advantages from this Province for the economic activity that is required to retrofit homes, to eliminate green house gases, improve our environment and to do good things for our economy at the same time.

This is a positive step -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - but we would like to see a lot more from this government on the issue of environmental protection and advancement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week in the House the Minister of Government Services announced regressive and unnecessary changes to the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission. She, in fact, stated that the contract for the Commissioner expired today, May 25. Why did the former Commissioner receive a phone call late Friday night, at the beginning of a long holiday weekend, from the Deputy Minister of Government Services advising him that his contract did not expire until the end of the month?

I ask the Minister of Government Services, why did she give the former Commissioner a premature termination notice? Is it another example of the government's bungling when it comes to the decision-making process or just an example of the government's haste to remove a very effective Commissioner and start pleasing the oil companies instead?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, an Order-in-Council was issued by the former Administration, and even the Commissioner did not realize that his term was up. May 25 was the end of the Commissioner's term and it was later discovered that the previous Administration had rescinded that order and issued another Order-in-Council.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the minister admits that she did not know the details before she made the announcement last week. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, to this side of the House, I can tell you, for sure. Mr. Speaker, was this, in fact, the minister's attempt to hide the fact that she made another fairly serious blunder or was this just another work in progress similar to the Budget documents that she described a couple of weeks ago?

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why did you request that the former Commissioner submit a resignation effective yesterday, yesterday, a resignation effective yesterday in exchange for an extra week of salary and benefits until the end of May? Who directed the deputy minister to make this late night phone call on Friday night asking the former Commissioner to resign so he could be guaranteed an extra week's pay and benefit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, myself and the Commissioner had a conversation and, as far as I was concerned, his contract was up May 25. He informed me at that time that he was relieved, that he had a job waiting, a campaign job, that he was very pleased with his work at the Commission, and was very pleased with the government. In fact, right now the PUB will be taking over that Commission, and effective today there will be a new Commissioner in place.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to ask the question again, because I believe it needs clarification.

Could the minister tell the House and the people of the Province, who directed her Deputy Minister to call the former Commissioner late on Friday night, at the beginning of a long holiday weekend, and ask that he send in a letter of resignation, when last week she stood in this House and announced that he was terminated effective today? The question was: Who gave the instruction to try and bribe the Commissioner to submit a letter of resignation in exchange for an extra week's pay? That is the question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, for all intents and purposes a new Commission was going to start on the 25th of May. The previous Commissioner and myself had that conversation and we both agreed that he did a fine job, and he said that he had new employment waiting. He was very agreeable with the Deputy, from my sources; that he was delighted to send a letter of resignation into the department.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the question again, because if we are not going to get the answer in the House, the people of the Province will get the answer sometime, somewhere. I expect we should get it in the House of Assembly.

I ask the Minister: Why did you rush the termination before the effective date, and, then, who instructed the Deputy Minister to request a letter of resignation which has not appeared? I have seen a copy of the letter that was sent to the minister today, Mr. Speaker. There is no resignation. Why did the government feel it was important to try to have the former Commissioner resign his position instead of being terminated at the end of his contract, at the end of May, as the law and his contract would dictate, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the PUB was notified that the Mr. Noseworthy would be the new Commissioner taking over the PPPC. The conversation, as I was informed by my Deputy, was that Mr. Saunders would submit a resignation today, effective May 24. He will be paid an extra week, but what I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition: Why did they rescind the first order and make it a second order, was it to give a political appointee another week's pay?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the long weekend a federal election was called, unfortunately this Province missed a great opportunity to have our issues heard and presented to our federal candidates and leaders by establishing an all-party committee, a committee that would have put the interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the forefront.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Now that we are in the early stages of this election campaign, will you reconsider your previous stance of last week and now support this committee? Will you join with ourselves and the NDP in putting aside party politics in an effort to ensure that our federal candidates give a commitment to put this Province's issues ahead of any other agenda in Canada?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it serves the best interest of the people of the Province to join in an all-party committee with hon. members opposite, who were members of the last government. With all due respect to the members of the New Democratic Party, that certainly does not include them. However, while they were in government federal-provincial relations hit an all-time low. That has been admitted by the former Premier and the current Leader of the Opposition. They basically burnt every single bridge between the Province and Ottawa. So, there would be no benefit, as I said last week, in us hitching our horse to a wagon with no wheels on it. That is exactly why we are not going to do it.

I can assure the Opposition House Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - that I am doing absolutely everything possible, and members of the Cabinet and members of the caucus are doing everything we can to bring the issues to the attention of the members of the federal government.

I have personally spoken to MP Matthews, MP Byrne, and I haven spoken twice to Minister Efford over the course of the last seventy-two hours. I have spoken to the Prime Minister twice in the last two weeks, and I have spoken to the Minister of Finance in conjunction with the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. We are putting the issues before the various ministers and before the various members of Parliament. That, we think, is the best course of action. We do not see any benefit, whatsoever, in tying ourselves to people who have a very poor and pathetic relationship with Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has no commitment on changes to the equalization formula. The Premier has no commitment on the Atlantic Accord. The Premier has no commitment on the Lower Churchill development. The Premier has no commitment on fisheries management. The Premier has no long-term commitment on 5-Wing Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier. You have had no success in getting any commitments from Ottawa so far, other than having speaking engagements with them. Can you explain what you intend to do, solidly, firmly, in writing, to get commitments from the federal politicians, candidates and leadership now that we are in the middle and in the midst of a federal campaign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member understands, our approach has not been one of confrontation. Our approach has been one of co-operation, consultation and collaboration. That is the approach that we intend to pursue. As he also knows, I do have commitments in writing from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and from the Leader of the Conservative Party. Those are actually, in fact, in writing. We do have those. We will continue, as I said, to talk to the various leaders. Mr. Harper is in town tomorrow. I will be taking these issues up with him again. We have gotten action on the 5-Wing Goose Bay file, as he knows. I have had a strong indication from the Prime Minister that he is prepared to take action on custodial management. I have been told by the Prime Minister that he considers the Lower Churchill to be a national project, and we intend to continue to pursue the Atlantic Accord.

The hon. member, the former Premier may laugh, but if we remember correctly, he went to Ottawa and he came back with a commitment on equalization from Prime Minister Chrétien. Can you remember that? Twenty-four hours later the Prime Minister came out and said you had no commitment. Well, that is not what we are going to do. We are going to deal with them in good faith. We are not going to put words in their mouths and we are not going to say we have commitments that we do not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I fear the Premier's inaction on these federal-provincial issues will ensure that this Province is, once again, forgotten after June 28. We now have an opportunity to make a difference, but the Premier's wait and see approach is not working. It is fine to be friends with our federal counterparts, but friendship is a two-way street. We continuously give to Ottawa and get very little in return.

Premier, will you stand up for the people of this Province and get some results? Will you let the people of this Province wait another year, another two years, another three years, before you realize that your verbal approach is not working and there is nothing wrong with asking the federal leadership - in this case the Liberal leadership, because you have it from the other two - to sign on to an all-party resolution whereby the commitments that we all want for this Province would be agreed to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, where was the hon. member when he was a minister in that government? Why wasn't he so vocal then? Why didn't they do something when they were in office for three years? Why didn't the previous governments do something for fifteen years?

How does he have the gall to stand up in the House now, when we are in power six months - nearly seven months - and try to place the blame on us all the time, when the mess was created by you and your government? You know that, and yet you have the cheek to stand up and try to blame us. Well, we are going to try and correct it. We are trying a new approach, and that approach is going to work, believe me.

You created this mess. We are trying to clean it up, and we are going to do that to the best of our ability. Believe you me, I can tell you right now, I will stand up, my Cabinet will stand up, my caucus will stand up, and fight for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the best of our ability!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is a bit testy again today. My questions are for the Minister Responsible for Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

Minister, today we have representatives from the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities in our galleries, who are attending meetings to discuss ferry services in our Province. Prior to and during the election, as well as in your Blue Book, you promised the people of this Province reduced ferry rates to bring them in line with road transportation.

Since you did not meet with these people today, can you tell this House: Why have the rates increased by 25 per cent, rather than having been reduced like you promised prior to the election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me respond to the allegation of not meeting with this group today.

This group, seven days ago Friday, sent a written request to meet with me. Well, everybody knows that two days last week I was Government House Leader here and could not leave the floor of the House. On Wednesday, I had to appear before the Estimates Committee and do my Estimates. On Thursday, we had Cabinet. Some time late Thursday night, I saw the bottom of my in-basket for the first time last week, Mr. Speaker, and when I saw the bottom of the in-basket I found that this group had unilaterally set a date today for their meeting and demanded that I appear.

Mr. Speaker, I do not operate that way. I will meet with anybody, anywhere, any time, given reasonable notice, but I will not be dictated to, and be available at the whim of somebody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whim?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, the whim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have been around long enough, and I am not going to - I do not treat people that way and I do not take kindly to being treated that way myself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of rates -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: I will try, Mr. Speaker, sure.

On the issue of rates, Mr. Speaker, we would like nothing better than to reduce ferry rates, do away with them all together - we would like nothing better - but, Mr. Speaker, the godawful financial mess that we inherited from this crowd opposite, they are the last ones that should be getting up talking about what we should do to correct the financial situation of the Province.

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 think the people of the Province are becoming a little sick of your excuses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, it has come to our attention that your department is doing renovations to the Lewisporte ferry terminal. Can the minister confirm that the money he is using is coming from the Labrador Transportation Initiative and that he is planning to put his constituency office in that building once the renovations are complete?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that there are some minor renovations being carried out to the transportation facility, what used to be the station there in Lewisporte, but my understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the funding that is used to pay for it is coming from a grant that the previous government gave to the Chamber of Commerce in Lewisporte last year.

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 again ask him: Can he check to confirm where the finances are indeed coming from, and the amount that is being spent on the renovations there, please?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to check. I just gave the hon. gentleman the answer. The funding is coming from - I do not know what the dollar figure is; I will find out, but - the funding is coming from a grant that the previous government gave the Lewisporte and Area Chamber of Commerce just before the election was called last year, so that they would not be on the former minister's back. That is where the money is coming from, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education, and it has to do with the Leary's Brook Junior High School in St. John's.

Parents, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned about the fact that this school is overcrowded. According to them, it was designed for 375 students. It is now being forced to accommodate 500 in sixteen classes instead of twelve. What is this government prepared to do to ensure that this kind of overcrowding will not continue into the next school year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. It is an important question, and I am very familiar with it.

Just to bring the hon. member up to date, approximately two or three weeks ago I, along with my colleague, the Member for St. John's North, met with a representative group from Leary's Brook school, members of the school council, the school principal, and there were members of the school board. I was fully briefed by this representative group, of the issues, some of which have been alluded to by the hon. member, as they relate to this particular school today.

I understand there is a public meeting tonight. Tomorrow, personally, as minister, along with the Member for St. John's North, I will be visiting Leary's Brook school to see first-hand exactly the concerns that have been raised by the parents and the representative group.

I have also undertaken, Mr. Speaker, to meet with representatives of that group in a matter of several days after tomorrow's visit so we can discuss in detail where, in fact, we go from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem, of course, it has been suggested that this government has deferred any plans to put an extension on that school. I just want to quote back to the minister, his comment about a year ago - on August 22, when he was education critic - asking: Is the government going to, once again, wash its hands of its responsibility for education by pretending that problems that arise are board concerns that the government should not really have to deal with?

Mr. Speaker, in addition to meeting with those people, which I understand is a very good thing for him to be doing - along with the member for the district - is he prepared to commit himself to solving the problems of that school as a result of the overcrowding that obviously exists? He is now obviously aware of that problem, and does not need to meet with them to hear further, but only to give them a proper answer. Is he going to commit to solving that problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I will commit to is ensuring that this particular issue receives every possible attention that it deserves, and it deserves significant attention. I will just reiterate my point to the hon. member, that we will take the proper due diligence. We will meet with the appropriate individuals.

As I indicated, I am attending the school tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. We are meeting with the representative group. In a few days, along with their member, the Member for St. John's North, I will receive the appropriate information and, in due course, the appropriate decision will be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 Health and Community Services.

I ask the minister: Given the fact that people in Labrador West are the only people in Labrador who do not receive an air transportation subsidy when they have to fly to Happy Valley-Goose Bay for medical services, or to St. Anthony, depending on where you live, and that the people in Labrador West have to pay $500 out of their own pocket verses other people in Labrador paying $40, I ask the minister, when is she going to treat us all equally so that people in Labrador West do not have to bear the exorbitant cost of getting medical treatment when the rest of Labrador do not have to pay that cost?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I believe I have answered that question in the House before. That program is under review by the department. It is part of the program renewal process and we will be making a decision at that time regarding all transportation subsidies in Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that four members of the PC caucus - the Member for St. John's West, the Member for St. John's North, the Member for St. John's South, and the Member for St. John's Centre - along with the Mayor of St. John's, are lobbying hard for amalgamation of St. John's with Mount Pearl, Paradise, CBS and Torbay.

I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: What discussions have taken place in terms of amalgamation, and does the minister share the same view as the four members in his caucus?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. critic for his question. With respect to amalgamation of St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, Torbay, whatever, Mr. Speaker, I can tell him at this point in time that the policy of this Administration is there will be no forced amalgamation. Everybody on this side of the House is free to have their own views, if they were not in the previous Administration. Clearly, our policy is no forced amalgamation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, recently this government proclaimed legislation related to regional services boards in the Province. I ask the minister: Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Is the plan to use this piece of legislation to start the process of amalgamation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the proclamation of the regionalization legislation is legislation that was in the House, on the books, since 1992, I believe, some twelve to fourteen years. We implemented that, we proclaimed it, so we can set up regional waste boards for waste management in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have committees up on the Northern Peninsula, Western and Central Newfoundland, and on the Avalon Peninsula, eager to go ahead with waste management in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we were going to go down the road of amalgamation we would not even proclaim that legislation because clearly, in the municipalities legislation now, it gives the minister the wherewithal and the authority to amalgamate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary is to the Premier.

This Premier has a reputation for not keeping commitments he made during the election. There are many examples of where he has done so. I ask the Premier, is he getting ready to break his word once again? Will he break the commitment he made to the Member for Mount Pearl that there would be no amalgamation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there will be no forced amalgamation, and that is a commitment.

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.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party made a number of promises during the last provincial election and they now seem to be walking away from most of them. They made many promises in relation to health care, and all we have really seen is a series of cuts and forced cost-saving measures without any real concern for what the impact is on people.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is she aware that some home care workers are not receiving the increases that they were supposed to receive? I ask you, Minister: What is the problem and how do you intend to deal with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not aware of the situation that the hon. member has indicated but I will take it under advisement and get back to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, that is usually the norm with this government. They do not even see the problems when they do exist, but I will tell the minister what the situation is. Government committed funding for a raise of pay for home care workers, and the funding was supposed to be raised to $7.29 per hour. We have had reports, and I have personally, from some people in the Province, that some home support workers have not received this raise, Minister. I ask you: How do you intend to deal with the problem and make sure that they get the raise they were promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: As I indicated to the hon. member, I am not aware of the situation that she raised; but, as indicated in my previous response, I will investigate and I will get back to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I just want to re-emphasize to the minister that these employees are some of the lowest paid workers in the Province in the health care sector and the work that they do directly impacts on our senior citizens and others who need help in their home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am hearing too much noise to my left.

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

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

Given the commitments that you made in your Blue Book to senior citizens, Minister, will you now tell the House what actions you will take to improve the program and to ensure, now that you are aware of the situation, that these workers get the raise that they were promised?

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

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

I would like to indicate to the hon. member that, as indicated in our Blue Book, we have gone ahead and established - we are going to establish -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: - a division for seniors within the Department of Health and Community Services. I have asked my Parliamentary Secretary to pursue that and we will be reviewing all of the programs that we presently deliver to seniors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In the absence of the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, my questions today are for the first alternate, the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Speaker, recently the right-wing Conservative guillotine fell and severed twenty HRE offices in rural areas of this Province. The minister, and I assume members of the Conservative caucus, think this is good news. Fewer employees, less services, and they think it is good news.

Will the minister stand today and confirm what was stated in the Estimates Committee meeting, and confirm that this House did not do a comprehensive cost-benefits analysis of impacts before those announcements were made, and that three collection officers were hired for the St. John's offices? Is it true that the minister really does not know how much money these office closures will save, or even if they will save any money at all, Mr. Speaker?

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.

The minister has said in this House on many occasions before that there is a reduction of offices because we have 9,000 less cases. They can be more efficiently administered there. Government is in the position of supplying services to people, not in the position of creating jobs. We create the necessary jobs to deliver the services. That is where it is to. Services are important to people and accommodations are being made here because the main reason, Mr. Speaker, is because there is a significant reduction in caseloads to people there. It does not justify, with forty and fifty people in caseloads, holding offices open. It is an unnecessary expense to government and it can be accommodated without any loss of services from other regions of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, a total respect for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister. Those answers are not very reassuring for the people of this Province. I have to ask the minister: Why is it the offices at Stephenville on the West Coast will undergo renovations to accommodate the extra workers coming in while the offices at Carbonear will not be renovated and will have two people working in the one office? Is it true that this government has another agenda, that we will be downsizing again next year to four or five regional offices? And, is it not true that all income support on the Avalon Peninsula will be administered out of the offices in St. John's by September, 2005?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Time for a very short answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is carrying out and doing what is efficient; a program, by the way, started by people on that side when they were in power. They initiated this program but they did not have the fortitude, with an election coming, to do what they wanted to do, wait until after the election. The reason for this is based on logic. The same logic which that side of the House saw when they were here and the same advice they had that we are going to move to an efficient operation so we can have better use of taxpayers' dollars here and provide a level of service to the people of this Province. That is what it is all about. That is what they started. That is what they would not finish, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

During Question Period there was an expression used that the Chair found objectionable. The expression was used by the Leader of the Opposition. I would wait to get the Hansard but I think the expression was something like: to bribe the Commissioner. I do believe that expression was used and I would defer, probably, until we get the written report. I would like to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity, if he wished to at this time - instead of waiting until that time - to withdraw that comment.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a ruling that phrase is unparliamentary and has been ruled so in the past?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair finds that expressions with that kind of - to bribe somebody, whoever it is, would be ruled to be unparliamentary because it would certainly indicate an act that would amount to an illegal act on behalf of somebody.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to check the tapes and if you find it to be unparliamentary I will certainly apologize at that time, but I would like for you to check the tapes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will check the tape and also check Hansard and come back to the House on tomorrow.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. PARSONS: I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that on tomorrow we will be proceeding on Private Members' Day with the motion followed by myself, as Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, concerning the federal-provincial striking of an all-party committee.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition from a group of people from Labrador West. It relates to the question I asked earlier of the minister concerning the $40 air fares for people in other parts of Labrador to access health care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay or St. Anthony while people in the District of Labrador West have to pay nearly $500.

Mr. Speaker, for the government to address this issue on behalf of the people of Labrador West, is the total cost, based on the numbers who use the hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, mostly for CT scans. I would say to the government, that the cost of addressing the concerns for them is approximately $40,000 a year. It is not a huge sum of money for a government to bear, but it is an exorbitant amount of money for individuals who have to pay the cost out of their own pockets, who do not have insurance plans that cover the cost of providing that benefit. Many of these people in my district are travelling to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to get CT scans. Many of the people who do that are cancer patients who have to make more than one trip. More than one trip in a month sometimes, Mr. Speaker. It adds up to a significant amount of money for these patients to bear on their own, while it would not be a great deal of money for this government to be able to put forward, that would treat the people in Labrador West on the same basis as the other residents of Labrador West are treated.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the other option that government has raised from time to time is that we have a road link to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and we can drive, but like I pointed out to the minister with the driver examiner, 1,200 kilometres round trip over a gravel road to see a doctor or to get some type of surgery performed is not the solution. It does not make sense for anyone to have to put themselves through that. Indeed, many of the people that I am referring to in this instance are not capable, because of their illness, of making a 1,200 kilometre round trip over that road simply to see a doctor.

We are not asking for favourable treatment, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking that we be treated better than other people in other areas of the Province. What we are asking is that we be treated equal within Labrador itself and that the people of Labrador West, who find it necessary to have to travel to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, be able to do so at the same cost that other residents of Labrador can do. Because one of the things that happens is when people from my area go to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to get medical treatment, oftentimes - more often than not - that necessitates another trip being made to the Health Sciences Centre here in St. John's, which costs more money again. So, it is important that this government recognize the fact that our access to health care is based upon our financial ability. That is something that is certainly a flaw in our system, where a person's health should not depend upon the amount of money they have in the bank and that people within a region to a central health care -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, people in one area, in a geographical area that is used in a central hospital for a specific purpose, should not have to pay significantly higher rates in order to obtain that service. I ask the minister, on behalf of our government, to address this issue immediately and start treating the people of Labrador West the same as people who live in other parts of Labrador.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from Fogo Island in my District of Twillingate & Fogo. It pertains to the raise in the ferry rates that we have just witnessed from the great Minister of Finance in his Budget a little over a month ago.

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance did was completely to the contrary of what his leader, the Premier, promised during the election, prior to and during the election and in his Blue Book, as I said today, Mr. Speaker, because in his visits to Fogo Island, prior to the election and during the election, he promised all those who asked him the question pertaining to ferry rates that he would indeed eliminate ferry rates and bring the cost of transportation by water in line with that which it would cost on road transportation. The residents of Fogo Island, Mr. Speaker, to say that they were somewhat displeased or disgruntled or dissatisfied with the Finance Minister's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are too many conversations going on in the Chamber. It is difficult for the Chair to be able to concentrate on the commentary of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very noisy here. I do not know what the members opposite have been doing this weekend, but it is very noisy.

Mr. Speaker, to say that the residents of Fogo Island were somewhat displeased and disgruntled over this, you can understand why they would be. The fact of the matter is, when the Premier of a province makes you a promise, or the leader of a party at the time makes you a promise, face to face, and then a few months later the Minister of Finance and the same government that is being led by the Premier gets up and breaks that promise, and not only does he not reduce the ferry rates but then he says he is going to increase them by 25 per cent, I say that is absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in Question Period, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, a question pertaining to ferry rates, and he got up and he waxed eloquently about the reason he did it being the financial state of the Province, and that they did not know this prior to the election.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself is supposed to be known, at least Province-wide, for his business acumen. He is supposed to be a Rhodes Scholar. He sat in this House of Assembly for three years, and examined the books that were presented each year. At that time he still made the promises.

We also have the Minister of Health, who was the Auditor General for ten years. For anyone out there who does not know what the Auditor General's job is, she was the woman who came into every government department, examined every cent that was spent by each of these departments, so she, more than anyone else in this House, would have known the exact financial shape the Province was in when they were running for election back in October.

Then we have a Minister of Finance today, who sat as the critic over here for seven or eight years for Finance. Each year he went into in-depth analysis of the Budget for the Province, so he knew exactly what the finances of the Province were. So, to get up in the House of Assembly and say - when I use the word he was using - excuses, that is all they were, because to get up in the House of Assembly and actually -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: - admit that they did not know the state of the finances, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. REID: - only admits that they were not very intelligent to begin with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It pays to stay on your toes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition from the residents of my district, from Carbonear, and the students of St. Joseph's, St. Francis and Davis Elementary.

Mr. Speaker, it is May 25 and we have reached a point where there is so much uncertainty, the only thing that is guaranteed that we can figure out is that St. Joseph's is going to close, students transferred to Davis Elementary and to St. Francis in Harbour Grace, with no funding allocated - from what I understand, and from what the parents are led to believe - to do the necessary renovations that would accommodate the students in September.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, summer goes very quickly in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially when plans are not made to made sure that necessary renovations - the money is not put aside for necessary renovations. We know from past experiences in this Province, where we have a limited workforce, if companies have a lot of work garnered up for themselves for the summer, maybe the plan, if there is a plan, to renovate the schools at Davis and at St. Francis, just will not get done in time for September.

The parents, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned about what conditions await their students in September. They are worried about air quality, they are worried about the classroom sizes when extra students are brought in, and they are worried about the eating facilities. Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue when this kind of thing troubles parents of small children.

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear today that the minister is going to visit Leary's Brook here in St. John's. I certainly hope that he takes his visiting a little bit further around the Avalon to Carbonear and Harbour Grace and have a look at the three facilities that I have been mentioning here for the past number of weeks, and witness first-hand the conditions of St. Joseph's and Davis Elementary and, of course, St. Francis School in Harbour Grace. He would come quickly to understand that the schools are not ready and they are not suitable to accommodate the students who are going to be brought there in September.

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday another motorcade was held in Carbonear. Again, each time that this is planned and organized, the motorcade gets bigger. It is followed up by a giant rally at the school. The response from the parents and the students, they are just frustrated with the lack of action. Granted, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to use the argument that this was done by a board that was elected by the parents; but, they are saying, so is the decision to close St. Mary's in St. John's, done by a board that was elected by the parents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to conclude.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the parents themselves find it very hard to understand why it cannot be changed because there is a new board in place.

Mr. Speaker, I do ask the minister to talk to the new board, visit the schools in the area, and see first-hand for himself what the conditions of those schools are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from people in Labrador, with regard to the Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that is being circulated in Western Labrador, Central Labrador, in Southern Labrador and Northern Labrador. It has to do with the Sir Robert Bond services being based in Lewisporte this year as opposed to Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who have signed these particular petitions - and there will be a number of them presented over the next weeks in the House of Assembly - are not happy with the fact that the number of scheduled stops into Goose Bay will be decreasing this year. They feel that it is an inconvenience. Mr. Speaker, they are also not pleased with the fact that more money will come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund to pay for a passenger service to Lewisporte, which they feel there is no need of.

Mr. Speaker, I attended, this morning, the session that was held by the ferry representatives from all over the Province at the Holiday Inn. I had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to listen to their views, as people who represent municipalities and communities, and they are not happy. They are not happy, first of all, because the government made a commitment that they would not increase ferry rates in this Province but instead went ahead and increased them up to 25 per cent over the next couple of years.

The people in this room representing municipalities across the Province are very upset by that action, Mr. Speaker. They feel that they took the word of this government and then they were let down, and they were led to believe there would be no increases when indeed there were increases.

Mr. Speaker, they also had a great deal of discussion around the Labrador Marine Services, and the fact that the Minister of Transportation and Works made a decision that went against the recommendations of a consultant's report, a report that government commissioned and asked for advice on, and then they ignored that advice. That was a big topic of discussion by the municipalities this morning as well.

Mr. Speaker, I attended the Viking Trail Tourism annual meeting over the weekend and one of the topics of discussion there was Labrador Marine Services. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe when the Member for St. Barbe stood up in that meeting and said that he supported keeping the Sir Robert Bond in Cartwright and that he had made representation to his government, wanting the Sir Robert Bond kept in Cartwright, because he knew that moving it to Lewisporte would have a negative impact upon his own district.

Mr. Speaker, I admire the Member for St. Barbe, for standing up to say that at the annual meeting of the VTTA, but I would encourage him to continue to stand up on that issue because that is an injustice that is being done to not just the people in Labrador but to the people on the Northern Peninsula as well. If you feel that strongly about it, he should continue to make his views known and his representation known, not just at the Viking Trail annual meeting, when he is in his district and among his constituents, but in his caucus as well, and in the public, and let people know what his views are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that this is an issue that we feel very strongly about in Labrador. We feel that government has made the wrong decision. We will continue to protest the decision of the minister and the government. We will continue to lobby to have the Labrador ferry service based in Labrador, for the benefit of the people of Labrador, and ensure that the money that is in the Transportation Fund is used wisely and to the best interest and to the greatest benefit of all people in Labrador and not to appease the political agenda of the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Orders of the Day, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is it?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today; and, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10 o'clock this evening.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we will move to Orders of the Day, Order 1, and ask that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Estimates - Consolidated Fund Services and Executive Council.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

The Government House Leader moves pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 25.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: We have Motion 5 moved by the Government House Leader, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10 o'clock today, Tuesday, May 25.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand that we are now moving to Committee of Supply?

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain motions relative to Committee of Supply.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay.'

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Today, we will be continuing debate on the headings under Executive Council in the Estimates book 2004.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is lots to ask and debate about this particular section. I would like to begin my questions today to the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance regarding Executive Council.

It is interesting that the minister said on Thursday that he was going to be looking at a $3 million decrease over last year's budget for that particular category, even though I might stress here today that the budget that was predicted for 2003-2004 was $33,837,000. I think what he neglected to mention was the fact that the actual budget came in at $30,357,000. That was not mentioned at all, but it is definitely worth mentioning. The new government's prediction for this coming year for the budget for the total of Executive Council, Treasury Board, is $30,714,000 under subhead 3.1.09 for the final totals on that particular heading.

I wonder what would indicate the increase in that area of $357,000 for the overall budget in a year of restraint and hard times, as he calls it? Even though the minister is quick on his feet to say that there is going to be a $3 million decrease, he neglected to say that only $30 million was actually spent last year. This particular new government is going to spend almost $400,000 more than was spent last year. He neglected to say that, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board if he would outline for this House what his plan is this year for the Premier's travel. We all know that the Premier's travel comes under several categories of this budget. The first one would be the Premier's Office, and that would be under heading 2.1.01.03., Transportation and Communications, and that would be $231,700 under that particular category. Of course then we have, under the Ottawa Office, Transportation and Communications, $55,000, and that would fall under category 2.3.04.03., Transportation and Communications, $55,000 there for the Ottawa Office.

We all know that the Premier also is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I would also like to ask the President of Treasury Board, under the category 2.3.01., Intergovernmental Affairs, Transportation and Communications, $50,000 under that heading. Then, in addition to that, under Protocol, 2.2.05, Transportation and Communications, another $85,000 under category 03.

These are four areas of the Premier's travel that needs to be responded to on what the Premier is planning this year. Of course, under 2.6.01 Rural Secretariat - there is a category too under Transportation and Communications under Rural Secretariat. Transportation and Communications under Rural Secretariat would be $152,300. Now, I do not know if the -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am not saying what - there are four categories now that the Premier can travel under. He can travel directly under the Premier's Office. He can travel under the Ottawa office. He can travel under Protocol. He can travel under Intergovernmental Affairs and he can travel under Rural Secretariat. I am just wondering what the plans are for travel for the Premier? When the Minister of Finance actually gets up on his feet and tells us that. There must be some important plans being made. I am sure that he will have an explanation, once he gets a chance to stand up. I know the Premier has said that he plans to do good things with the Ottawa office. Right now it is a mystery. Of course, I neglected to mention, I guess, the Premier's new Department of Business. There is $750,000 there that has not been identified as to what or how that particular budget will be spent. So, it will be interesting when we find out that.

I know under Protocol, the Minister of Finance said under Purchased Services, 2.2.05.06, $142,000. Last year there was $130,000 spent, but in this year of restraint I would like for the minister to outline what will actually be purchased or how this money will be spent?

I would also like to go back now to salaries. I notice that in Executive Council, even though - if we look at Executive Council, Executive Support. In Salaries under Executive Support, 2.2.01.01, Salaries are listed at $856,900, but in actual fact when you look at the Salary Details they are actually listed as $979,599. So, I would like for the minister to explain if there is some overtime or if there is temporary help or if there are positions that are currently vacant or new people are coming on. I would like to hear from the minister on that section.

I would also like to hear about Economic and Social Policy Analysis; very important part of Cabinet. I notice that the total for Executive Support, Economic and Social Policy Analysis, and Protocol is $1.3 million in salaries alone. I would like for the minister to make comments on that one, if he would. I want to also ask in Economic and Social Policy Analysis, 2.2.02, Salaries have increased over last year's budget for $90,500. I would like for the minister to be able to tell this House: Why have Salaries increased of $90,500?

It is interesting that people outside are wondering why we are actually asking the same questions day after day and I would have to say to the people watching and the people who might listen to various media, we are asking the questions because this is our job. We are the Members of the Official Opposition, and if we ask questions everyday on how the public money is being spent, we are doing our jobs. Although it might sound repetitious at times, the reason for that is most days we do not get an answer. Most days we do not get a proper answer from the government on how money is actually being spent. We more or less hear a spin. So if people outside are wondering why we are asking the same questions, it is because we want the right answers and we have to continue to do that on a daily basis.

I was looking at an article that appeared in The Western Star on Thursday, May 20. It was written by one of the editors of The Western Star. It was called the Sad Saga of the Tory Budget. This is part of the Budget that we are doing today, a very important part. It involves the Cabinet, Treasury Board, Executive Council, the Premier's Office, and all of those areas. The article in The Western Star went like this: Oops, the provincial government is forced to apologize. Why are they apologizing? They are apologizing because some of the information that they had generated as part of the Budget was later found out to be inaccurate. I find that kind of startling because I know, personally, after being a Cabinet Minister in three different portfolios, you can really depend on the reliability of the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats, whenever they give you some piece of information, I can tell you, they have their homework done, and it does not just pass through one set of hands; it passes through many sets of hands.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know I will have a chance very shortly to continue.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will let her back up again very shortly. I just want to mention to her, just to set the record straight on a few things, she is under the impression that the Premier of this Province is going to go around and take transportation and communications costs out of various other departments. She should know that the former government, and I was Chair of Public Accounts, the Auditor General found out that the Premier of the Province, her leader, was charging costs off to numerous departments, not only under travel but in other items, purchased supplies, everything, to fund the Premier's travel. When they got caught by the Auditor General, raised by the Public Accounts, then they reversed those costs, and that is in the public record, in the record of the Public Accounts. We had officials there from government.

What the Premier is doing now, he is going to use his travel and communications costs within the areas where it is budgeted. We are not going to hide it in Innovation, Trade and Rural Development or Municipal Affairs. We are not going to hide it in Transportation and Works. We are going to make it transparent. He is not going to do travelling out of the Rural Secretariat. That is the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development's responsibility.

As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs there is only one item, I think, in the minister's office there. He is the minister. If there is travel to be done there, he will do it there if it is necessary. The Premier's Office, that is where it is coming from. It is not coming from areas that the hon. member is saying. The Ottawa office is for the individual that happens to be appointed there, or any transportation associated with it.

The Premier's travel is Premier's travel, and that is what he is going to do. He is not going to do what was done before. It would almost take a team of accountants to come in and be able to find out where the Premier's travel was buried, and that is a fact. Anybody who has served on Public Accounts - and there are four on that side of the House who sat on it with me, and three from this side of the House - they would know that. That got reversed after the Auditor General highlighted that, and now it is being done.

We want to do it up front. If it is staff in the Premier's Office - what happened before was, there were staff in the Premier's Office working out of other departments, charged to other departments but working in the Premier's Office. We want to set the record straight. We do not want to be going under that veil of secrecy, over in other departments, charged to other departments but working out of the Premier's Office.

We are different. It is going to be done differently. Just because it was done before, the hon. member does not have any right to assume that it is now being done, because she is absolutely wrong on that issue. I just want to clear the record on it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to take my ten minutes and speak to the Estimates of Executive Council, but in particular I want to speak to the Rural Secretariat. As critic for Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, I have some concerns, obviously, about a Secretariat that seems to be enigma. Nobody knows quite what it is about or what it is going to do. From what I can gather here, we are looking at the Strategic Social Plan, I suppose, in a sense that it seems to be that what was once called the Strategic Social Plan is now the Rural Secretariat.

When I look at the amount of funding that is allocated, I am concerned because I do know what the Strategic Social Plan was all about. It was an innovative idea. It was, in fact, a commitment by the previous Administration that was looked upon by the rest of the country as an ideal way to go in dealing with issues, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, when I realized that the Strategic Social Plan was no longer referenced in the Estimates and then found out that it is, in fact, now the Rural Secretariat, I guess my questions were around: Well, what is the difference between the Rural Secretariat and the Strategic Social Plan?

Then, when I look at the Estimates of the Office of Executive Council and that particular heading, the Rural Secretariat, I see that, in fact, the budget overall, there was a $2 million budget there under the previous Administration for the Strategic Social Plan, and now I see that the heading, which is the Rural Secretariat, in fact, there is $1.7 million there. You are talking a reduction of $300,000 in terms of being able to carry out the mandate of the Rural Secretariat - in other words, the Strategic Social Plan. That causes me concern, as I know it does other people around rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What I am hearing is that people really are not quite sure what the mandate of the Rural Secretariat is. They know that as part of the Strategic Social Plan they knew exactly what the Strategic Social Plan was all about. They knew what the mandate was and they knew what they had to do, in fact, to fulfill that mandate, but people are telling me, people now who are involved with Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and other leaders in rural Newfoundland, they are not quite sure if, in fact, the Rural Secretariat does have the same mandate as the Strategic Social Plan. They are a little confused by it all. I guess the fact that you have taken what was the Strategic Social Plan and now called it the Rural Secretariat, they are not quite sure what the difference is or why the name change.

The other thing, of course, if you look at the Estimates, it is in the Office of Executive Council instead of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. That has been an issue for them as well because if you are going to call it the Rural Secretariat - and I know that the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development certainly has referenced it in our Estimates that we talked about, but what I am hearing from people in rural Newfoundland, those who are concerned with rural development and revitalizing rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they do not understand why it is not positioned within the department and instead it is under Executive Council and the Estimates for it are under Executive Council.

We are talking a Rural Secretariat that replaces the Strategic Social Plan, or at least replaces it in name. We are not quite sure, so there is confusion in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular about that. The fact that the budget for it has been reduced by $300,000, there is significant concern there because, of course, if you look at the Estimates you see the salaries. The salaries are about the same, but I guess the question I would have for whomever wants to answer it, either the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development or the Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering questions with respect to the Estimates, would be the Employee Benefits section. I notice that, in fact, last year the budget for it was $5,500 and the revised was also $5,500, but today we are looking at Employee Benefits of $300. I cannot understand the difference in the number, which is significant, so I guess I would ask either of the ministers to explain to me the difference there, why we would have salaries that are essentially the same, but when you look at Employee Benefits we are down from $5,500 to $300? I put that question out there to get an answer to before the day is out.

When I look at Transportation and Communications for the Rural Secretariat, again we see a significant drop there in the amount of money allocated for those two very important functions of any entity in government, your transportation and your communications, but especially for the Rural Secretariat because clearly the name itself, as it implies, is all about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We know, if you are going to deal with some of the issues that are confronting us in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you need to be out around rural Newfoundland and Labrador to do that. You cannot do that from St. John's, any more than you can do it from Corner Brook. You really do have to get out into the smaller communities, in fact, the heart of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So, if you make a decision to cut the Transportation and Communications heading of that particular Rural Secretariat then, of course, that is cause for concern.

Overall, when we are looking down over the budget for the Rural Secretariat and we see a reduction of $300,000, that is, in fact, a 15 per cent decrease which is of concern. Of course, we have seen cuts across the board by this government in all areas, and some very unwisely. I would suggest that this is one, in fact, in which they did not really act appropriately, if in fact they want to focus on rural Newfoundland, if, as they say, it is important to them and they want to try and revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I look at the Transportation and Communications aspect of the budget for the Rural Secretariat, the drop is significant there. In fact, you are talking about $90,000 less for Transportation and Communications for the Rural Secretariat.

The other heading that concerns me is Professional Services. We have all found out over the years in trying to work with people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whether we are doing it through the REDBs or now through the Rural Secretariat as well, that it is really important to avail of those with expertise and those who can give some advice on how best to move forward in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am looking here at Professional Services and I am seeing that in 2003-2004 it had given a budgeted amount of $94,300. In fact, the revised budget for Professional Services was $104,900, and today we are looking at $12,800. That is a significant reduction in the amount of money that has been allocated for Professional Services for the Rural Secretariat. What can you get for $12,800? What can you do for that amount of money? I would put forward that you can do very little in the way of professional services. So, I have some concerns there as well. I am hoping, again, that either of the ministers will stand and speak to that and explain why such a significant decrease in the amount of money that has been allocated in this budget for Professional Services for the Rural Secretariat.

The other area where we see a significant reduction is in Grants and Subsidies. That is really troubling. We budgeted last year $240,000 for Grants and Subsidies. Revised, it was $205,000 that was spent, but today we are looking at $200,000. So, again, a significant reduction because, of course, $40,000 to someone or some group, or some organization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador is significant to them. Again, I would question why the reduction there. Of all areas where you have made choices to cut, this was probably one of the most troubling ones for a lot of people, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of those who are in leadership positions in the rural parts of our Province, in fact, look to the government to work with them to help revitalize. We all know how difficult it is to access funding sometimes for various programs and services and various organizations that want to get involved and try to make a difference in Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of them avail of these grants and subsidies.

Again, I put the question out there because I think it is important that people understand how that money is going to be given out and who can access the grants and subsidies. The strategic social plan is now the Rural Secretariat, if, in fact, there has been a change in terms of who can apply for those grants and subsidies; what they are meant to do. How they are to be spent, in other words, by anyone who would be successful in accessing that money. Overall, I have to say it is troubling. Again, I think about the Regional Economic Development Boards out there, and we all know that we have people serving on those boards who are serving on a volunteer basis. They represent stakeholders from throughout the Province, whether it is the education sector, the business sector, municipalities, and so on and so forth. We know that the REDBs have been very instrumental in working with government, both levels of government by the way - or three levels, I should say - but the funding has come from both the federal and provincial governments. In fact, the funding -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Permission to just clue up, if I may?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS FOOTE: Just to again reiterate, that for the REDBs we know that the majority of the funding came from the federal government. In fact, it is 70-30. The municipalities, of course, were not required to put any money in for the REDBs. So at the end of the day, I think we have the REDBs there. Now we have the Rural Secretariat. I guess there is some confusion out there in terms of what role each is going to play in trying to revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador and work with the leadership in our smaller communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, perhaps I should address the reduction in the budget, which is approximately $300,000. Mr. Chair, last year the Social Strategic Plan spent $110,000 less than had been budgeted. So what we are talking about, in fact, is approximately a $190,000 reduction in that budget. There are a number of reasons for that, Mr. Chair. The primary one would be that community accounts have now been developed and implemented and do not require the same kind of funding that was required in order to set them up.

With regard to the specific questions raised by the Member for Grand Bank. Under Employee Benefits, usually employee benefits refers to membership and conference registration fees for provincial office community account staff, the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency and regional planners and support staff in the six regions. Given that we have restraint measures at the moment, any expenses related to employee benefits for the next year will be paid through regional allocations based on priority.

With regard to Transportation and Communications. The Premier's Council on social development met only twice in 2003-2004 and no travel funds are allocated for the council for 2004-2005. Assessment of timing and frequency of steering committee meetings to ensure maximum budget efficiency and to ensure participation of steering committee members across the region are being looked at. For example, the Cormack region are now having their meetings every six weeks and are using video conferencing. So the same amount of travel is not required.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes. The travel, yes.

With regard to Professional Services, extra consultation was required based on the priority set in 2003-2004 to conduct Phase III of the social audit. The consultant, Jane Helleur & Associates Inc. were contracted to complete the learning study. That work is now complete, and accounts for the decrease in the budget there.

Under Grants and Subsidies, as the member knows, the SSP was never a funding organization nor will the Rural Secretariat be. However, some funds were made available under Grants and Subsidies to allow the SSPs to partner with other organizations to do research on community projects. We did some research back in March. (Inaudible) with all the SSP committees and there was substantial funding still left in their budgets. They are using that funding now. So the work of the SSP is ongoing.

The broader questions of the Rural Secretariat. The Strategic Social Plan has been rolled over into the Rural Secretariat. This is a transitional year for us. During the year as we develop the Rural Secretariat, the work of the Strategic Social Plan is ongoing. I have met with all the Chairs of the Strategic Social Plan. Their work is ongoing as it has done in years past.

This government believes that social and economic development are interdependent and they must occur at the same time. What we are doing in the Rural Secretariat is allowing the committees in the six regions of the Province to put an economic lens on the regions as well as a social lens to gather information, to do research, to carry out analysis on social and economic issues affecting rural Newfoundland and Labrador; to carry out research on economic and social issues affecting their relationship - the rural communities - with the urban centres in the Province and how we can live together, and to form a committee out of that that will not only advise government, but be able to come into government and effect policy in its development and programming in its development and implementation. It is a much broader mandate than was held by the Social Strategic Plan.

I have met, as I said, with the Chairs of the Strategic Social Plan committees who are very excited by this development and see that it is a natural evolution of where we need to go. I am in the process of meeting with Regional Economic Development Boards who will continue to exist in their own right but will also contribute and be part of this larger piece of work. As we work these relationships with all of these partners, as well as municipalities and other stakeholders, practicing the touchstones of inclusion, capacity building and partnerships, that at the end of this year we will have a Rural Secretariat who will be able to advise government, from a grassroots point of view, on the social and economic needs of rural Newfoundland and affect policy at its very development.

Than you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask some questions now on another department that the Premier is responsible for, and that would be Intergovernmental Affairs.

Intergovernmental Affairs - it is called the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. Of course, naturally, the object of an Intergovernmental Affairs Department is to foster and improve the relationship of the provincial government with the federal government. The object also is to have more of a say, and get more results on the five items, I suppose, that we have all been very interested in over many years. That would be: getting a better deal, of course, on equalization; getting a better deal on our Atlantic Accord; having a commitment, a long-term commitment, on 5 Wing Goose Bay; having a commitment for more health care spending - it appears now that this will be one of the planks of the Liberal Party campaign that is now currently underway - and, of course, a better deal on post-secondary education, unlike what we have seen here over the past few days, since March 30, when this government decided to slash and cut the budget for post-secondary education.

Under Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, it is interesting that the Premier now is taking over the responsibility as the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs; that is one job that he is going to do. He is taking over the job as the Minister of a new Department of Business.; that is another job that he is going to do; and, he is the Premier. Of course, that is three areas that he is going to be directly involved in. Naturally, the minister's office would not carry a salary because he already gets the salary as being the Premier, so none of us would expect him to have a salary from that office, but it is interesting, under 2.3.01., under Transportation and Communications, which I pointed out earlier, there is $50,000 there that the Premier will have available to him when he travels in that capacity.

It is also very interesting to note under Executive Support, under that particular department, 2.3.02.03., $121,000. Now, I would like to know from the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board how that money will be spent. Will it be spent travelling from here to Ottawa to actually go and visit the Ottawa office? Because, there is another category.

It is interesting that I have always said the devil is in the details. Of course, it is what is not said that is very interesting throughout this whole budget exercise, particularly when you look at the Ottawa office, that has a starting figure of $350,000 a year. There is also Transportation and Communications from that particular office of $55,000, and that will fall under the heading of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. That is very interesting.

Under the same department, there is Policy Analysis and Coordination. This is where the bureaucrats get in and do their work and make sure that any policies that are developed by the government, they make a strong case when they are bringing their case to Ottawa that what they are saying is correct, unlike what has happened in the past month in the provincial Budget that was brought down when we found that the Minister of Government Services had made a huge error in her budget department and had to make some re-tracking herself.

What we are finding out now is under Policy Analysis and Coordination, the salaries alone for that section, that would be bureaucrats and their Salaries budget there for bureaucrats of $605,000. Now, last year it was $551,000 so they must be hiring somebody new or there is some position there not filled that is going to be filled. Even under that one, there is Transportation and Communications of $79,000 so that is more travel.

I would like to go back to Executive Support, 2.3.02. Now, I understand that there is going to be a New England Governors' Conference and I know that is not going to take up $277,000. It would be interesting to find out how much it is actually going to cost. Then you look at Grants and Subsidies, $320,000. I would like to know who is going to be getting grants and subsidies out of that office; because, if you want to look at the actual - there is another department, too, that the Premier is going to head up. It is a bit of a mystery at this point, but we do know that there is $1 million going to spent for the new Department of Business. Under that particular heading there is another $35,000 worth of travel that the Premier can use there. The Executive Support, who will work in the Department of Business, that is unknown at this point, has $50,000 that they can use. Then, under Business Attraction, there is $725,000. None of us have any idea of what they money will be used for, but we did try to find out. We did try to have a meeting, an Estimates meeting with our Premier. In fact, we tried many times to schedule it so that it would not interfere with his travel and his meetings that he was having in Europe. We offered to actually have that Estimates Committee any time that was convenient for him, but he did not see fit to accommodate us in trying to get this information. The total of that Business Department is $1 million.

It is interesting, too, when you look under Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, there was a category last year for the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada. Now, that actual Commission cost $3 million in total, for government to find out whether or not our place in Canada is our rightful place. There was a lot of good debate and dialogue and meetings and a chance for people all around our Province, both within and outside our Province, to have their say and let us know what is right and what is wrong. That whole Commission cost $3 million.

It is interesting that in last year's budget we, as a former Administration, budgeted $3 million for that particular Commission to take place. Now, that Commission has their work concluded. There is no work now that needs to be done by that Commission, so, in actual fact, there should be no expense connected with it at all. In fact, last year there was $1.2 million budgeted for that particular part of their work, but there was roughly $750,000 of that used. In actual fact, $750,000 should come off that final total at the bottom. Instead of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, the whole department, costing the taxpayers of this Province $2 million, it should only cost the taxpayers of this Province, $1 million.

Really, in essence, what is happening here today is that the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, has said that in the previous year the former Administration budgeted $33 million for this particular running of Executive Council when, in actual fact, there was $30 million spent, not $33 million. I think that is important to note. If you were following that logic, the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat should only cost $1 million and not $2 million as is reported.

What is missing from this whole scenario is the fact that the new government is actually spending more money, because more money is in the areas that I have indicated. That is in the Ottawa office for certain, it is in Executive Support, and it is in Policy Analysis and Coordination. It is no trouble to find out, for those who want to pick up the Estimates booklet and the salary booklet, they can find that out easy enough.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall headings 1.1.01 to 3.1.09 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MS THISTLE: I heard the minister ask a question.

CHAIR: The Chair did not recognize the minister. There was nobody standing, and the Chair asked if the House was ready for the question and called the headings. There was no intervening speaker, I say to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

Shall the headings 1.1.01 to 3.1.09 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

Are there any other speakers on the heading of Executive Council?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

There is an opportunity, I guess, Mr. Chairperson, to talk about aspects of the budget under Executive Council. One of the reasons the Official Opposition have, for the last week to week-and-a-half, talked about what a waste of money an intergovernmental office will be in the City of Ottawa. What a terrible waste. What will we be using it for? Why is there a necessity to have a provincial office in the nation's capital?

We answer it this way: First of all, I think we have to intimately and ultimately understand how important the relationship between provinces and the federal government is. For example, there are divisions within certain departments in the federal government whose budget is bigger, or two to three times our own provincial budget. The opportunities for procurement activities, for engineering companies, for local businesses, for R and D, these are opportunities that we have not taken advantage of in the last twenty-five to thirty years the way that we could have or should have taken advantage of. We have watched and stood by other provinces, while other provinces in the country - for example, two western provinces share an office in the nation's capital. They staff it, and have for over a decade.

MR. REID: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo asks, why? Because it works for them. The success of that office for their provinces has ultimately worked. It has worked in more R and D; it has worked very well in terms of federal-provincial issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nunavut has an office.

MR. E. BYRNE: Nunavut, exactly, the new territory in the country. Nunavut.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: A full-time office.

While I have listened intently to members opposite talk about: Well, what do you need $350,000 to open an office for anyway? What is the Premier going to spend that on? You know, maybe he will be there the middle of June. Maybe he will have to take a $50 taxi. Maybe it will be the Minister of Transportation and Works in July. Maybe it will the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs, signing an agreement that gives us joint custodial management because we are in the federal government's face. Maybe it will the member and Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs signing a new roads agreement that will see significant money put into the infrastructure of the Province, which communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador want. Maybe that is what it will be used for. Maybe it will be the Member for Lake Melville who will be up negotiating a new agreement with ministers on behalf and with ministers in the government to ensure that 5 Wing Goose Bay survives beyond 2006. Maybe that is what that office will do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Maybe it will be, I say, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health who, after this federal election, if all leaders federally, the Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat, whoever gets elected, if all of them are making a commitment to put significant money into the health care system, maybe in October or November the Minister of Health, along with the Premier and the Minister of Finance, may be up signing an agreement in our Ottawa office that will put $200 million to $250 million back into the coffers of the Province.

That is why it is required. That is why we believe in it. It has proven to be successful in other jurisdictions. It has proven its worth for other provinces. Surely, out of a $4 billion Budget, a little over $4 billion, this initiative is manifested in a belief that we have, as a party and as government, that if we are going to be in the business of federal-provincial relations then we have to be where the federal government is, and that is in the nation's capital, day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out, because that is where we need to be on that sort of basis, in their face. It is no good every now and then to send an all-party committee from the House once in a while on a specific issue. We are up and back, and that is it. People are saying: yes sir, no sir, yes madam, no madam to us. It is a great show, and important as sometimes they have been. The fact of the matter is, that it demonstrates a long-term commitment to the process of what this government feels is important.

We believe that we can capture significant opportunities for local businesses. We believe that we can capture significant export opportunities for businesses. We believe we can capture significant market opportunities, overseas and international, for businesses. We believe that we can capture significant social and infrastructure opportunities for the people of the Province. We believe, fundamentally, that if you are going to build a Province, and if you are going to build a Province where people want to come and invest, then government's role is to build that infrastructure. Part of building that infrastructure, and the necessity to build that infrastructure in today's world, in the country today, from a pan-Canadian point of view, if we are going to do this properly, then we must also come to the absolute recognition, and I mean absolute recognition, that it will be done through the federal-provincial process.

The days are over when 100 per cent funding programs are offered carte blanche, as were done in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The new reality of federal-provincial relations today - the only reality that we need to deal with is the one by where we can forge relationships, navigate those relationships, end up in federal-provincial sorts of agreements that give this Province the opportunity to improve the economic, social, cultural, and historic well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that give businesses, private men and women, who each and everyday are doing their level best to create jobs and wealth for the people of the Province, that we can provide to them some voice and some opportunity so that they too can take advantage of their government's initiative. That is the reason why we feel so empowered and so committed to an office in the nation's capital, because we believe that ultimately it will pay off and we would not be in the business of putting $350,000 in a budget, as members suggest opposite, so that the Premier can travel. Surely, surely, surely we are a little bit bigger than that to understand the concepts behind what we are trying to do.

I said early, several weeks ago in this House, that if I listened to the Opposition each and every one of us in the government would have to walk in through the door and get our horns and tails. The fact of the matter is, that this is a government that is new. This is a government that is trying new initiatives, and this happens to be one of them. I am not ashamed of it. I am proud of it, and if we need to fix it at some point or tweak it to make it better, than we will not be ashamed to do that either. But, the fact of it is this, that the reason why we have done it are the reasons why I have outlined it. The reasons why it is in the Budget is the reasons - because that is the Premier's view that he has expressed during the election. This is the view that he wanted to move forward on, and that is the endorsement he got. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, we believe that over time the proof will be in the pudding on this very important initiative.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Government House Leader, great sermon, no substance.

It is fine for him to stand here today and wax eloquently about the need to have an office in Ottawa so that the members opposite, the Premier and his Cabinet can be in the faces of the people in Ottawa, the decision makers in Ottawa. The only thing that I find sad about all of this is that the people from Fogo Island, the people from Change Islands, the people from Twillingate Island, the people from New World Island do not have an office in St. John's so that they can be in the faces of the members opposite everyday. Maybe then they would not be losing their social services offices. Maybe then they would not be getting increases in their ferry rates like we have been witnessing in the last few days. Maybe then we would not see hospital beds closing, no roads being done or anything else that you promised before the election. So do not stand here today and lecture us on the importance of an office in Ottawa. The importance of an office in Ottawa so that you will be in their faces.

All your office is going to do in Ottawa is spend $350,000 of our taxpayers' money that could be spent, I would say to the member, far better here in this Province in some of the rural communities of this Province who need $350,000 today to keep an office open; keep a welfare officer on Fogo Island, I say, Mr. Chairman, rather than waste it in Ottawa where we have seven senators up there today and seven MPs who are doing what for us? Who are doing what for us? They are being paid by the federal government to do a job. I say to the minister, if the Premier and his Cabinet are not going to do any better than the bunch we have in Ottawa today I would say take the money and give it to my constituents so they can set up an office in St. John's, Newfoundland, not in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, he talked about the need to be in Ottawa, to be face to face with the lawmakers in Ottawa so we could get custodial management for the people of this Province. I doubt very much if the hon. member who just stood knows what the words mean, custodial management. Mr. Chairman, I do because I was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province for two-and-a-half, three years and I worked in the Department of Fisheries for seven or eight years prior to that. I know what custodial management means to this Province but I doubt very much if the member who just spoke or if the Premier, himself, knows what the words mean.

Mr. Chairman, when you are talking about being in the face of people, the Premier of the Province took a little junket just last week, or the week before, to Europe where he was going to be in the faces of the decision makers at the European Union. He was going to talk custodial management to the lawmakers of the European Union and try to get custodial management for Newfoundland and Labrador. What success did he have? He went to Brussels and met with a number of the EU representatives. I might add, he never met with a politician. He never met with the European Union Commissioner for Fisheries like I did two years ago. I can tell you one thing right now, Mr. Chairman, and I will tell all of those who are out there listening to me, if the meetings the Premier had were no more successful than the ones I had, then I tell you, he was not very successful. We found out after he came back that he was not successful at all because what has happened? He said when he came back he credited himself with convincing the European members to allow Canadian inspectors to board the Portuguese vessels when they got back in port. What happened the day after he came home? The Portugese government said there will be no Canadian inspectors.

Mr. Chairman, this battle with the European Union has been going on since 1977 when we extended our boundaries out to 200 miles. We have been fighting the fight for custodial management. We have been fighting the fight against foreign overfishing for some thirty years now and what has happened? Nothing. When we went forward as a government, the Liberal government some years ago and presented the case for custodial management, what did Ottawa say? No, we are not doing it. They have consistently said that right up until a month ago when Loyola Hearn, the MP for St. John's West, presented a private member's motion in the House of Commons that was accepted. If you notice the ones who were absent from that debate, it was the Prime Minister of the country. He would not go into the debate and vote on it. The Minister of Fisheries voted against it. The Foreign Minister voted against it. Our own federal Cabinet minister, who represents the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, abstained. Hid away! He did not go to the floor of the House of Commons to have a vote and then had the audacity the next day to come on and say: Oh, the people of the Province would not want me to stand and vote for that. Sure I would have to resign, and nobody would want us to do that. Nobody in the Province would want me to do that.

I say to the minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, the people in this Province wanted him to vote for that and he should have voted for that. As an individual from just up the shore here, I think he called in from the Goulds, he said if he were in the position that our hon. Cabinet minister was in, the only thing that would stop him from going to vote that night would have been a death in the family. Well, I can tell you, the minister never had a death in his family but he put his own personal gains ahead of those of us who are here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If the Government House Leader thinks for one minute that by being in the face of those who make decisions in Ottawa night and day, day and night, is going to make any difference, believe me, I have been there. They do not want to hear you.

My colleague, the Opposition House Leader, put forward a private member's motion the other day whereby we would put the issues that are important to the people of this Province before all of those who are seeking election in the federal election in the next thirty days or so. We would list what is important to us and we would ask them what their stand was on each of these particular issues and we would get a commitment in writing from them prior to voting day, which I think is June 28?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. REID: June 28. What happened? The Premier stood in the House of Assembly and said: No, we are not going to do that. We are going to vote against that on Wednesday afternoon because we do not need your help. We do not need your help.

If you look at it, the Premier does not need anybody's help, I guess, except for his own. I guess what his problem is, he does not want to share any glory. Believe me, we are not doing it for glory. We are doing it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we have been ripped off by the federal government, by the European community, so long that I do not know how much longer we can stand or sit or lie in this Province and take it year after year after year.

We had an opportunity a month ago, when Loyola Hearn put that private member's motion forward and had it accepted, to make the private motion into a bill, pass it in the House of Commons and make it law. What did we do? What did we do? Absolutely nothing.

I say to the member from the Goulds area, when he talks about going to Ottawa with an office and we are going to expect to see great results in a short few months or a few short years, I think he is sadly mistaken. I think, as I started out by saying, the member should be more concerned about putting the $350,000 that he is going to waste to have a place to hang out when they visit Ottawa in the summertime, that money would be better off spent on the driver examiners who they took out of my district, on the social services officers who they took out of my district, out of the highways depots that they are closing, out of the weigh scale operators who they are closing on the West Coast and jeopardizing the safety of the people of this Province. Mr. Chair, I say to the hon. member opposite, the money could be far better well spent than wasting it away on frivolous trips and frivolous offices in the nation's capital.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I commence by saying I appreciate the magnanimous gesture of the Government House Leader vis-à-vis being the intervening speaker just recently. As the rules require, of course, there should be an intervening speaker and I happened to be absent. I was making a phone call, in fact. In any case, we had a course of action and I appreciate the magnanimous actions of the Government House Leader.

Just a few comments, Mr. Chairman. First of all, concerning the matter of the Department of Business that the Government House Leader alluded to, it brings me back to the comments we have had in this House about the actual Estimates. We are into a process here now whereby certain parts of the Budget are getting discussed in this House and members on either side are free to comment on what these figures mean, particularly the Executive Council figures which includes funding for Treasury Board Secretariat, Intergovernmental Affairs Office, the Cabinet Secretariat, Senior Management Development and so on, the Minister's Office, the Premier's Office, Women's Policy, Rural Secretariat. There is a whole pile of stuff under this heading of Executive Council that allows the people here to find out what the money has been allotted for, budgeted for, and what the government intends to do with that money in the next fiscal year.

The Government House Leader referred to the Department of Business, and I raised a question last week: If the Department of Business is so crucial, and is a new approach, and granted we should always be open to new ideas and new suggestions and new approaches, why did the Premier refuse to appear before the Estimates Committee that was dealing with the Department of Business? Everyone knows in this Province that it was a platform plank in the Blue Book or the blueprint, whereby the Premier was saying: We need a different approach, we need a new approach, we are going to establish a Department of Business in Ottawa. No one took exception to that fact, that there was going to be a new office, a new department, called the Department of Business, of which the Premier made himself the minister.

The only question that was raised in this House in the context of the Budget and in the Estimates Committees where Opposition members would ask questions of the ministers, are: Well, why can't the Premier come and tell us himself what this new department intends to be all about? That is the concern, it is not a question raised here, of, should it be done? Is it a waste of money? How can we justify opening offices in Ottawa, and suggesting we open offices in Europe, when we are closing twenty HRE offices here in the Province, and have we made the right choice?

That is all the concern was about. The Premier, as you know, albeit he was Europe and could not be available at the scheduled time, was allowed an opportunity to debate or to talk about his Estimates at any time of his choosing, any place, anywhere, any time in this Province. The very man who is in charge, and whose idea it was, the Premier, refused to attend to talk about the figures for that new department.

It takes time. It is not a question; it takes time. No one expects this Administration to turn everything around in seven months. Obviously, that would be foolhardy for anybody to expect that. I do not think that it is unusual, or it is forceful, for the Opposition to at least ask the Premier - well, fine, we realize you have to take some time. It will probably be a year, two years, three years, whatever, before we see the fruits of your labour, but surely, surely, you can come to an Estimates Committee and tell people what your plan is. If there is some part of your plan that you think ought to be kept confidential, for sensitivity reasons or whatever, or negotiating reasons, you can say that; but to outright refuse to the members who speak on behalf of, as an Opposition, the public of this Province to even attend, I think it goes not to what the office is all about but it goes to the Premier's position and treatment of the idea. If is was good enough to put in your plan, and good enough to ask the people of the Province to vote for you on, which they did in good faith, surely you should take the time to come and explain it at an Estimates Committee. That is the only issue here.

I am a firm believer that you cannot criticize until you know what it is about, and if we do not know what it is all about, and that is our opportunity to find out what it is all about, the Premier should have taken that opportunity; another golden opportunity, I would submit, that he missed, because he refuses to appear and give an explanation.

It is also like the Premier's position on what I thought was a golden opportunity of getting the federal MPs, candidates, leaders, to put their names to paper. What do we lose, what is to be lost, in asking all federal candidates in this election: Would you please sign your name to a piece of paper saying these are concerns that we have in our Province and we would like you to endorse that you will try your best, your utmost, to see that this is done.

We have it from the federal Leader of the Conservative Party, we have it from the federal Leader of the NDP Party, and the Premier says: Well, I don't want to do that. He does not want the Opposition, at least, to be baggage. We are a bad wagon to which to hitch your wagon.

Even if that is the case, assuming that you do not agree with the all-party approach, Premier, what is wrong with still asking the federal government to commitment to it in writing the same as the other two leaders have done? That is not an overly aggressive approach. That does not take away any other arrows you have in your quiver. That does not diminish your arguments, but it certainly puts the feet of the federal Liberal Party to the fire, in saying: Are you prepared to stand by your commitments? It does not in any way denigrate the Premier's new approach, with or without an all-party committee.

We did not mind, for example, in years past - I believe it was 1999 - we did not mind having an all-party committee go to Ottawa to talk about the seal hunt. We did that in this House. We did not mind having an all-party committee of this House go around this Province last year to deal with the issue of FPI, because it is a major initiative that impacts upon the people of this Province, particularly rural Newfoundland. We did that. We do not mind coming into this House, in successive Private Members' Days and unanimously endorsing things like 5 Wing Goose Bay, which the Premier, himself, brought forward to this House and asked everybody to support, which everybody in this House did support.

I cannot figure it out. If it is good enough for the goose, it is good enough for the gander. If it is good enough to do it on Goose Bay; yet, when we want to do it and put the feet of the federal politicians to the fire, or put their names to writing, why would we not do it? It does not take away from the fact that you can be friends and have a great relationship, which the Premier considers now that he has a good, friendly working relationship with Ottawa versus what he calls or classes as a confrontational attitude. It does nothing to take away from his new approach.

Again, it befuddles me to figure out why the Premier simply refuses. What is the rationale? That is what I am missing, and that is what I am not hearing. I have asked questions in Question Period. I have asked questions publicly. Why will this Premier not appear before a committee to say what his Department of Business stands for? Why will he not endorse or ask the federal leadership parties to endorse where they stand on these issues that are oh, so relevant to Newfoundland here? Anyway, we will get to debate that issue again and talk about that again some more tomorrow.

Back to more particulars. This is for the Minister of Finance, I guess, who usually responds to the types of questions that we have here, when we are trying to get some understanding. Like a lot of people, I would be the first to admit that I certainly do not know everything about the government process. I certainly do not understand everything there is to know about accounting or accounting principles and methodology. I would like to be, if anything, educated, so a lot of the question I ask and will ask of the minister are based on the point of, I would like to be educated. It may show my ignorance of the subject, but bear with me. At least it gives the opportunity to the Finance Minister to explain to people what some of these ideas and some of these policies are.

For example, on page 25 of the Estimates book for 2004, dealing with the Treasury Board Secretariat, we see figures under the 3.1.07. heading whereby in 2003-2004 year - and, by the way, so people in television land, I guess, can understand where we are coming from and it is not all mumbo-jumbo, there are three lines in this book that we are going through. One shows what the budget was for 2003-2004, the budget figures. Another line, called the Revised, shows the people what was actually spent. The government, for example, might have wanted to spend $1 million on a certain department, and they ended up spending $900,000. The $900,000 is what was actually spent. This year, of course, they give you another budget figure, and next year we will get the actuals on that budget year.

My question of the minister - and just using that one heading, 3.1.07. as an example - is, it showed last year that the budgeted was $2,420,000, the actuals were $1,600,000.

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will get an opportunity to ask my questions in another session.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to rise today and have a few words in the debate. First of all, I want to comment on the money that has been budgeted here for the office in Ottawa. It has been raised today and there has been some debate on it back and forth across the House, but I think what we have omitted is the fact that we already have fourteen offices in Ottawa. Those are offices, I think, that - maybe it is not quite fourteen, but we have seven offices that are occupied by the MPs for Newfoundland and Labrador and I think five or six Senators who are in Ottawa who also have offices. To say that we do not have a presence in Ottawa, or a presence within the federal government, is absolutely wrong.

Madam Chair, I have to ask the question. Government's reasoning for budgeting this money to establish another office in Ottawa can only mean they feel that the offices that currently exist, the offices occupied by MPs and by Senators from Newfoundland and Labrador, are not effective, have not been effective, and have not been there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I ask the Member for Trinity North to allow me to make my point, Madam Chair.

Are they saying that these offices are not providing for the issues in Newfoundland and Labrador, not bringing the representation of the people forward in the federal government? Because, if that is the case, I have absolutely no idea why we are now in the middle of another federal election in this Province to elect seven members, to have another seven offices based in Ottawa.

I think that the government has to be very clear on their view of that and what their perspective is. Do they not think that we are being served fairly in Newfoundland and Labrador now? Do they think that spending another $350,000 to add another office, on top of the fourteen or fifteen that we already have in Ottawa, is going to make any tremendous difference?

Madam Chair, I have to, I guess, ask the government what our priorities are, because I have a district which just had two HRE offices closed and a region that is served by a school board that has just been closed. The rationale of government has certainly been that financially they are unable to maintain these structures in all different regions of the Province and therefore they feel, because of fiscal restraint, they have to streamline their services, deliver them from central or regional locations and therefore some offices must close.

I think I have to question their priorities here because, as a provincial government, they are certainly elected to service people in all regions of the Province and allowing for the accessibility of services and the affordable accessibility of services in all regions of the Province. When you have a situation where you have numbers of offices that are being closed because the government says that fiscally they cannot continue to operate them, it is compromising services and compromising the level of service that is being provided in a lot of these regions. I speak primarily of HRE offices, of highway depots, of school board offices and so on. So, you know, that has to be a question that is asked. You know, is the office in Ottawa essential? Is it a major priority? Does it need to happen now, when we already have a number of offices that are in Ottawa being occupied by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, most of them being staffed by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

I have travelled to Ottawa, Madam Chair, on a number of occasions to meet with federal ministers on many issues from the fisheries to Labrador comprehensive funding agreements and so on, and I have always found that the offices of the MPs, especially the MP for Labrador, have been very co-operative with me in organizing meetings, scheduling meetings and so on. I have found them to be very helpful and their staff to be very helpful in terms of allowing me access to the appropriate ministers and the appropriate offices that I needed, to be able to vent my frustrations, bring forward my issues and have them adequately addressed on a national level.

Madam Chair, it begs me to ask a question and to ask if this is a spending that is wise and in the best interest of the people of the Province at the present time, at a time when we are seeing significant cutbacks, more office closures in different rural areas of the Province where these communities will be left without provincial services?

Madam Chair, I also want to speak a little bit, in general, about the Executive Council because my experience in the last couple of weeks with the Executive Council was through a Freedom of Information document; a document in which we requested information. The Executive Council provided that information, and I have to say there were a great deal of inaccuracies, a great deal of false information that was provided through those documents. Realizing now that the information which was given to Executive Council actually came from various departments of government; various departments which gave out false information to the Executive Council themselves. I really have to question how effective Executive Council can be in performing their duties and responsibilities if they do not have fair information, factual information from the various departments in which they have to deal with?

I think there have to be significant efforts made to improve that so that when you do access documents from government, through Freedom of Information, that you can look at them as being a reliable source of information, an accurate source of information and know that when you speak to that information, that you are actually speaking to something which has been decided upon or has been committed to by the government and not find out, only after the releases are out and the issue becomes an issue of public debate, that government has indeed not made that decision and changed their minds at the last minute, withdraw that policy or withdraw that commitment and did not inform the Executive Council of the change. That, Madam Chair, is wrong and those things should not happen.

Today when the Government House Leader rose on my point of privilege he said the member should have referred to the numbers in the estimates for that particular department. I guess telling me that the information I had in Freedom of Information, I should not rely upon it. That is the only thing I could assume from it. That I should not have relied upon the information I had gotten under a Freedom of Information request but rather I should have relied upon the estimates within the Budget. Well, Madam Chair, I sat through a lot of these Estimates Committees and I can tell you right now that a lot of the estimates we have explored does not seem to be what meets the eye either. That a number of the positions that have been budgeted for in this Budget are positions that are currently vacant, may remain vacant, may not be filled over the course of the next year. Therefore, Madam Chair, it does not give me what I feel is a fair and accurate picture of the line items within those particular departments.

As well, Madam Chair, we have already heard about the debate and the changes that are occurring, even as we discuss the Budget here in this House of Assembly. It was announced that the renovations to the hospital in Gander would be cancelled. We have since had MHAs out saying that this was not the case, that it may just be deferred. When we go through the Budget Estimates we do find that there were some amounts of money that was actually budgeted for renovations in Gander. So, you cannot always get a full and accurate picture just by looking at the numbers either. You do have to ask the questions, and the questions have been asked. Quite often the answers are much different than those that you were led to believe was the case right in the beginning.

Now, Madam Chair, my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile put forward a motion in the House of Assembly last week. It was a motion that was calling upon all the members running in the federal election from Newfoundland and Labrador to sign an undertaking, to sign a commitment on behalf of the people of the Province that they would work towards each and everyone of these initiatives. They dealt with equalization. They dealt with fair return on gas and oil. They dealt with other benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, custodial management of the fishery and cost-shared provincial-federal agreements, including transportation, municipal affairs and so on. It was a very - I do not have a copy of the motion in front of me now but I am just recollecting from memory. What it did was it outlined the very basic fundamentals that are of concern to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador whenever you are dealing with the federal government or issues of a national level. These are issues that impact each and everyone of our communities. It does not matter if you are a member in St. John's Centre or if you are member in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. It affects every single region of the Province and it affects them in many different ways.

I thought it was a good resolution that was put forward by my colleague. I thought it would have went a long way in strengthening the climate and strengthening the debate that would occur out there in the public over the next few weeks as we go through a federal election. Because it would have asked each candidate what your stand is, what your party stand is and get them to commit to some real active debate on these issues and where they actually stood. I was disappointed that the -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Just a couple of minutes to clue up, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to clue up my comments with regard to the motion, is that it is a good motion. I think that, in itself, would deliver us a good, strong footing with the federal government, and maybe that is the first approach we should take.

The Premier's comments with regard to having an all-party committee would not suffice the government of the day, I say that it was alright when it came to 5 Wing Goose Bay when he wanted to engage the support of all members in this House. It was okay when we looked at the foreign overfishing issue and engage all members in this House and therefore it should be adequate and should maintain the same kind of credibility, the same kind of strength on this motion as it did on previous motions. Madam Chair, it is unfortunate his change of heart.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I just want to take a minute or two to comment on what the member indicated. She is basically saying we do not need an office in Ottawa, we have seven offices of the members there. She said five or six senators. I am not sure how many there are. I thought there were six. There are six, so that is thirteen. I have not spent most of my time following the Senate, to be honest with you. I am not necessarily a believer that it is a structure that represents the parts of our country properly. I think if we are going to have a Senate, as a second sober thought, it should be done to neutralize the geographical disparities that are in the country. We should not be giving all the senators to Ontario and Quebec and the major centres. The United States Senate get two per state.

MR. COLLINS: Get rid of them altogether.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Labrador West said get rid of them altogether. Maybe that is a viable option, but at least it is worth consideration. What I do believe in is that it should be more effective. The United States have two. The little, small states and the huge ones - like California. At least you are hearing the voice of the common man. The smaller populations are getting an opportunity to be heard. I think that is the way. If we are going to have a Senate in this country that is the way it should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, elected rather than appointed. Elected I agree with. I agree with equal and I certainly agree with effective. In other words the Triple E, or if you are not going to have Triple E get rid of them. Throw them out. We are not going to agree with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I do believe we need a voice in Ottawa because the seven MPs get elected as members to represent their respective districts. While they represent their districts - while they do speak on behalf of our Province in their respective areas they are not individually elected members to speak for this Province. The Premier of this Province speaks for the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevancy.

MR. SULLIVAN: Highly relevant. Section 2.3.04 in the Estimates, Ottawa Office.

The Premier speaks for this Province. It is important, I think, that we have a strong voice in Ottawa, an opportunity to be able to deal with important issues between provinces. As the Minister - also the Premier - responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, it is an opportunity also to be able to deal with the federal government on important issues.

I do not follow the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair's thoughts that because we have seven MPs and we have six senators we do not need anybody fighting for this Province in Ottawa. The more we have fighting for people in Ottawa the better it is.

MS JONES: We don't need it.

MR. SULLIVAN: She says: we do not need it. Well, we should not have it. What is she complaining about? Now, she agrees with it. When she is on her feet she does not and when she sits down she does. I would like to know what she agrees with.

She praised up the Member for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien. Granted, I have had a positive relationship with Mr. O' Brien, but it is not the relationship when she was on this side of the House and he talked about the little power point presentation the Member for Bellevue made. She was not too happy then. Oh, how times change when you cross fifteen or twenty feet of the House. It is all about the Ottawa office. It is all about being relevant, yes. The member is relevant to the point in time.

I think it is a good Budget initiative. It is a good initiative of our party to build an office there, to have an office in Ottawa to deal with all the dealings between federal and provincial. It is positive. I think if it can foster a relationship, if it can help accomplish working relationships and accomplish results for our Province, it is certainly worth a try. I think it is important. It is one of the initiatives that we laid out prior to the election. It is one of the commitments we are living up to. We do not hear them standing in the House and telling us all these commitments that we live up to. They are telling us about these commitments that we were going to accomplish and we did not do in year one. We would like to do all of these commitments in year one, but when you are faced with a billion dollar deficit, faced with $600 million on a cash basis, there are a lot of things that you cannot do immediately. It has to take a period of time.

We do not want to accelerate the agenda. You could do it all in one year, and then have negative impacts on the economy. We have to balance that. When you look at the impacts on the economy, they would be minimized with initiatives that we take.

On that side of the House, they stand and talk about 195 people given layoffs, or 217 in total, and they presided over 2,000 layoffs. Two thousand layoffs coming up for Christmas, that is what they announced. Then, when we announced 217, or 195 actually the one time, they think the world is coming to an end and they play it up and they push it, when decisions were made by them when they were over here, a lot of these decisions. A lot of them were precipitated by that government when they were in power, and the initiatives in the HRLE offices were started. It was their project they started but, like many things they start, Madam Chairperson, they cannot finish. They start a lot of things but they do not finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with Executive Council?

MR. SULLIVAN: It has a lot to do with the Executive Council. It has a lot to do with the budget and spending. It has a lot to do with the Consolidated Fund Service, the money that we have available, that we borrow and we spend in our Province. It has everything to do with finances.

I just wanted to correct the member. I do not want to belabour the point, but I did want to mention that I do not agree with her when she says that we do not need more people, we do not need anybody else up in Ottawa speaking on our behalf, that we do not need it. I disagree with that. I say the more we can have dealing with this Province, putting forward our issues and trying to get a result, the better it is. If more came on side, I think it would speak a lot better for our Province.

So, let's stand up and fight. Let's not say we have enough people fighting for this Province. You will never get too many. I beg to differ with the member there, and hopefully she will see the light and realize that it is important to be able to have representation speak on behalf of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chairperson, I wanted to make a couple of comments, again, with respect to the Estimates on Executive Council, having had the opportunity to say a few words before we recessed for a glorious long May 24 weekend. It might be a little bit historic, certainly for this session of the Legislature, because I want to say that I agree 100 per cent with the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Not to be political, Madam Chairperson, but I can tell you it is a red-letter day, not to say that it is a red Liberal or anything else, that kind of stuff, but the issue, the articulation of the position with respect to the Triple E Senate, put forward by the Minister of Finance, I could not agree more. As a matter of fact, he said it as well as or better than you could ever say it, that it should be equal if we are going to have it. If we are going to have a second chamber, because it is very relevant today, Madam Chairperson, particularly with the Executive Council, that I will get directly back to in a second, but with a federal election in full swing, it is extremely relevant today. Because most of the federal politicians, at least the ones that we are going to elect now, the 308 that are going to be elected on June 28, seven of them from Newfoundland and Labrador - listen to it - seven from Newfoundland and Labrador, 308 in total. The question is, what kind of a voice are we really going to have in any event?

Then there are - I think I saw the numbers today - 188, almost 200 of them, almost two-thirds of all the seats elected are going to be in Ontario and Quebec.

MR. SULLIVAN: One hundred and eighty-three.

MR. GRIMES: One hundred and eighty-three. I stand to be corrected, and I appreciate the Minister of Finance -

MR. SULLIVAN: Somewhere around that (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Okay, so we are close.

I am surprised that the Minister of Finance did not give me the exact number, because he knows every other number. Three hundred and eight, we agree with that one. I knew I had that one right. We agree that there are seven in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are agreeing on a lot of things today. This is remarkable.

In any event, there are close to 200 of them in Ontario and Quebec, and seven of them here. If we are going to have a real, equal say in that federal governance structure, the balancing component in the United States of America, which is the dominant population and the dominant economy on this continent that we live, it is through a Senate. He said it extremely well, that in each of the states they get two Senators, and if you cannot pass your legislation through the Congress and the Senate, where everybody has an equal say, it is no game. It is not on.

MR. SULLIVAN: California is (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely. California, with the population equal to the whole of Canada, one state in the United States, but when it comes to voting something in their federal government, they have no more say than Maine in terms of the Senate.

A state with the full population of Canada, one state gets two votes in the Senate, and Maine, which is one of the least populated states in the United States, gets two votes in the Senate. So, equal representation I agree with. The other part, absolutely. It would be much more effective, in my view, if it is equal and elected.

Let me tell you a story, just as an aside, Madam Chairperson. I was in Ottawa some time ago, maybe close to twenty years ago now, on teacher business. I had the great pleasure of representing the Province as a part of the Board of Directors for the Canadian Teachers' Federation. We finished our day's work and we were having dinner at the restaurant in the hotel, and a few of us were talking about the Senate and the fact that it should be equal, it should be elected and it should be effective or else it should be abolished, and the person who was actually attending on us that evening, she came over to us and said: Well, you had better be careful what you say in there. I said: Why is that? She said: Well, I worked part time for one of the Senators and I would not want to be put out of a job. She said: At the next table over there are four Senators. I said: Good, because I want to go over and talk to them. It was not a matter of shutting up about it; it was a matter of an opportunity to go and talk about the issue.

Again, it is a bit of a red-letter day because I can tell you that on that issue I concur 100 per cent with the Minister of Finance, that if there is going to be any real opportunity for us to have a real say in Ottawa, this seven seats out of 308 is not going to do it, but maybe an equal elected effective Senate might.

Now, the only way to get to that point, though, is that you have to change the Constitution. Herein lies the problem. We voted in this House to try to change the Constitution last year, if need be, for fisheries management. All members voted for it, all parties, unanimous, and then guess who did not think it was the right thing to do? Ontario and Quebec. Actually, the only real ally that we had, who thought it was the right thing to do, was Alberta. Alberta thought it was the right thing to do because they are facing a situation right now of being one of the fastest growing economies and populations in the country but no change in their number of Senators. So, the population could shift dramatically and you would have more people actually living in Alberta an British Columbia in twenty or twenty-five years' times than in the heartland of the country, in Ontario and Quebec, but the Senate does not change. So, it does not matter how many people move to which part, or how many people leave which part; the Senate does not change. There are some occasional adjustments if they are agreed to, but if you really want to get to the issue it has to be a change to the Constitution, which people do not seen to have the stomach for right now.

Madam Chairperson, the Executive Council - unfortunately, which we are looking at the Estimates - is the group of civil servants, high-placed bureaucrats, not in line departments. They are in organizations like Treasury Board, which oversees all of the operations of government, and the Cabinet Secretariat, which does all of the support work for the Cabinet. It is that kind of an agency that we are talking about. By the way, they presented this document which has become somewhat infamous in the last few weeks. This is the document that they put together, and now they are being blamed as bureaucrats who made a few mistakes, that the Premier and the Acting House Leader, and now the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, have apologized for, but it is unfortunate that at some point one of the positions that the government took before the apologies and the admissions that there was something wrong was that they wanted to blame it on the bureaucrats. Ministers of the Crown said it was a work in progress. Others said it was a draft document. Another one said: Oh, you cannot really count on what is in here because it really does not mean anything.

Well, it means a lot, and it means a lot to the people in the subheads that are serving the government and the people of the Province through the Executive Council functions.

We talked a little bit about it the other day, but we will move on from that. Let me talk, just for a second in these few minutes, Madam Chairperson, about the Ottawa office, the new approach. We are talking about a new government, a new mandate, a new approach. Let me say this for the record - and again I bet you there are members on the opposite side who will hear this for the first time - a Newfoundland and Labrador office in Ottawa is not new. It is not a new initiative. It has been done before. It has been done on at least two occasions, where we have opened up offices in Ottawa because we wanted someone other than the seven elected MPs and the six Senators to be our voice, our ears, and our point of contact in the nation's capital. Each time, by the way - this is the new approach - it was abandoned after a period of time because it was ineffective. By the way, it is not a Liberal initiative and it is not a Conservative initiative. It was done by the Conservative government prior to 1989 and it was done by a Liberal government in the early days of the 1990s.

I heard the Member for Trinity North saying we just put the wrong people up there. We had very good people at the time, so the Conservative Administration thought when they put their person there, and so the Liberal Administration thought when they put their people up there, but each time the project was abandoned because there were no results and because it was such a minuscule voice. The real answer is whether or not our seven MPs and our six Senators -

MADAM CHAIR: I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will come back again on another point, but to finish on this point, if I could, so I don't have to address it again: The real issue is whether the seven elected MPs, the six Senators, and the government in the Province at the time, are on the same wavelength with respect to the issues. The problem is this: Today we have a federal Minister of Natural Resources for the Government of Canada seeking re-election who spent the last two weeks down here trying to convince people that the Atlantic Accord is not all that bad. Now, I don't think we are on the same wavelength. You can open all the offices you like, you can put all the bureaucrats up there you like, you can spend $350,000 fifty times over, but if the elected federal minister in the Cabinet is not going to present the view of the government you are wasting your time opening an office.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson, for this opportunity, and we will come back to other issues I wanted to address at another time.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it has been clearly demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition that putting an office in Ottawa is like crying in the wilderness. Two previous governments had done that and there were absolutely zero results, zero results from putting an office in Ottawa.

I can just imagine an office in Ottawa. It is a starting figure of $350,000 to the taxpayers of this Province. I wonder will that office in Ottawa have a professional steam machine so that the people who are arriving from Newfoundland and Labrador on the jets can pop in and have their clothes pressed out before they go over to see the Prime Minister. Do you think that will make a difference? Do you think that will make a difference to the results you are going to get from that particular office? I doubt it.

It is a sad day in this Province when you are going to open up an office in Ottawa for $350,000. The Premier himself said last week, after his little junket in Europe, that maybe he needs an office in Europe.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope he doesn't go to Outer Mongolia, or he will want one out there too.

MS THISTLE: Now, if he goes to Africa in a months time we might need an office in Africa.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He said it.

MS THISTLE: He said it. I didn't say it. These are not my words, let me tell you, these are not my words. The media reported it and I am reporting what the media said. If he is let loose to travel the globe we will have an office in every country around the globe.

When you look at that, what justification is there? I can understand my colleagues from this side of the House talking about that because everybody knows when you put an office anywhere, you have a budget probably of $350,000, and you cannot sneeze at that. That is only a starting figure because we know full well what it will be once somebody gets up there from Newfoundland and Labrador and they are trying to make an impression on the politicians in Ottawa. But, how can you do that on the heels of not reacting to the people of this Province who have the greatest needs? How can you do that with a clear conscience, when on Budget Day, March 30, the Minister of Finance stood in his place and reeled off cancellations after cancellations?

Sometimes the people in his own caucus got confused. They did not think the cancellations were cancellations. I know the Member for Gander thought it was a deferral, not a cancellation. When the Minister of Finance can stand in his place and say that the cancer clinic is cancelled in Grand Falls-Windsor, what kind of clear conscience can you have? Then you come up and say, in the next breath, we are going to put an office in Ottawa. Can you imagine that? Then in the same breath -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I said it is what is hidden in this Budget that you do not know about. We found out full well two weeks ago what was hidden when the Minister of Government Services came out and talked about all the weigh scales being closed. I found out only last week that the weigh scales in government, itself, receives a grant every year for the operation of the weigh scales, providing that the people who are working there meet the certifications necessary. In order to have the certifications to accept that $350,000 grant, they are required to do inspections on about 1,100 vehicles a year. Now, with the staff who are left, how are they going to carry out those inspections? How are they going to keep their certification status? How is this Province actually going to accept that grant money from Ottawa? Because they are not going to meet it. Clear enough.

Then we heard in the same breath on Budget Day - it took about an hour to give the speech - that there would be no money for the CT scanner in Burin. Now, people in Burin rely on the CT scanner right now here in St. John's. Here they are going to have to travel over the road from Burin in the worst kind of weather when a CT scanner was planned and promised to them but they are not going to have it.

I cannot help but talk about other things that are going to happen as a result of this Budget, and today it is not known. Right now there is a study into health care. There is a study into post-secondary education. We all know what studies mean. Studies mean cuts, efficiencies cuts. That is what that means.

It was interesting when - I started it when I was up on my feet a while ago, talking about an article that was in The Western Star. I never had an opportunity to actually say what it said. One of the editors from The Western Star on Thursday said, "How dependable are the deficit numbers the Tories have been using as a reason to cut and slash?"

Another thing that never came out of the Budget, and it was in the Premier's own district. The Minister of Government Services announced it. There was an oversight, "...the failure to make public the closure of a Finance office in Corner Brook." There are three workers out there who are going to be without a job. Now that did not come out in the Budget, did it? No sir! I imagine it probably came out in the Budget Details and Statistics 2004. I imagine it came out in this book. The one that they accused the bureaucrats for supplying the wrong information. This is the Budget Details. This accompanies every Budget, and has been the case for many years in the past. I can tell you, when this booklet is printed it is entirely accurate. I have never seen it in the past where a bureaucrat made a mistake in presenting this information, because this is done after the Budget. This is just a compilation of everything that occurs within the Budget. I can tell you firsthand that the bureaucrats made no mistake with this book. It is a bit of a cover-up, we all know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big time.

MS THISTLE: Big time cover-up. In fact, the government themselves last week had to stand on their feet and apologize because it is a cover up. Every government member on the other side should have a look through this Budget and see what is going to be affected in their own particular district, because I doubt very much if they know. They do not know what is going to happen in their districts, but if you get this book you will know because there is a lot in this book that you should know. It is sad, the fact that they are sitting in a caucus on the government side and they get most of their information from hearing the Opposition and hearing the media, because they did not know that their offices were going to close in Corner Brook. They did not know that Human Resources and Employment offices were going to close even in the Tory districts around the Province. They did not know that until the minister made the announcement and they found out through the media.

In fact, it is interesting that this editor here in Corner Brook, he goes on to say, "Premier Danny Williams keeps saying he is going to run government in a more business-like manner." That is clear because he just decided in this particular Budget that he is going to take $1 million to start a new Department of Business, his way. The new approach. It is going to be done his way. It is going to be done his way so much that he saw no responsibility to come and explain to this House or this side of the Official Opposition as to how he is going to spend that money. Is this his new approach to grow business? He is going to take $1 million of the taxpayers' money. That is only in one area. Then he is also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He is also the Minister of the new Business Department. All of this is money that is going to be spent his way. Answer no questions because he is going to do it his way.

Besides that, he also has the Rural Secretariat. There is a budget line there - I think it is $5 million in Grants and Subsidies where he is going to be passing out grants and subsidies to particular businesses doing it his way. Is this the way the people of this Province wants this government run? I do not think so. He was the man who proposed to being open and accountable, but if you are going to spend $1 million and you are not going to tell anybody how you are going to spend it, I do not think that says much about being open and accountable.

I had it said to me only yesterday, that we have a fee imposed now on small charitable organizations. That is going to have a huge impact this summer -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: I wonder, could I just have a minute to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have heard it said that even in our own tourist chalets around the Province, or even in a park, anyone who wants to sell a few confectionary items: bars, a bag of chips, or anything like that to young people or anyone who wants to buy them, they never had to pay for a permit before. This year, for the first time, they are going to have to pay anywhere from $125 to $300. I understand in a seasonal operation you can pay half of that amount - if you are a seasonal operation - but it is like someone said to me, in some of those little places they would not sell three cartons of chips for the whole summer and have to pay $62.50 for a seasonal permit. Is this what you are doing to promote business?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

A few minutes ago, I was finishing my few remarks with respect to the Ottawa office and I would like to pick up where I left off, Madam Chairperson, because it is critically important. It was raised today in Question Period with respect to the Premier of the Province, the leader of our government, who, for some reason, just wants to do it by himself, the one-man show. He does not want any help or assistance from the Official Opposition. He sort of suggested that he had no hard feelings towards the NDP, but he does not want to use them either. He is going to do it his way and he is going to sort out this Ottawa thing.

The point that was made by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, Madam Chairperson, our Opposition House Leader, was that right now we already have a problem. There is an election in full swing. It is going to be determined on June 28 on the federal scene. What we have with the new approach, taken with respect to federal-provincial relations by the current Premier, the new approach, the diplomatic approach, is, we have an agreement - this is critically important, Madam Chairperson - being nodded to and acquiesced by our Premier that the equalization program is not going to change for another five years. It is amazing really, when, in fact, in premiers' conferences, in First Ministers' Conferences each of the last three years, every single provincial and territorial leader, including Ontario and Alberta, agreed that the equalization program should be changed, and should be changed in a manner that would see Newfoundland and Labrador keep more money, get a better deal, be treated more fairly, and make some real progress in the Canadian Federation; but what we have is the current Premier now signing on and deciding, for whatever reason, it is better to - he wants to be friends with the Prime Minister. He wants to speak on the phone with him, and go to football games, and sit down to dinner, and smile and chat. I do not know what they are smiling and chatting about, what they are having such a good time about, because they have agreed that the equalization formula is not going to change for another five years. We have our Premier, who does not want to even make an issue of it in the election; does not even want to talk about it. The federal Liberal government has succeeded in having people like the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador agree that we are not going to make equalization an issue in the election, but he wants to open an Ottawa office to accomplish what?

I thought you would open an Ottawa office so you could convince all of the federal bureaucrats and the parliamentarians that the case that we have made about equalization changes, that we have already convinced the Premier of British Columbia, the Premier of Alberta, the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Manitoba, the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Quebec, the Premier of New Brunswick, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, the Premier of the new Territory of Nunavut, the Premier of the Territories, the Premier of the Yukon, already agreeing that the formula should be changed right away. There was supposed to be a change in 2004, the perfect time to lobby and press and push to get the changes that we needed in Newfoundland and Labrador because it is an election year. If they are ever going to make a change, you know it is going to be in an election year; but, what does our Premier want to do? He wants to put $350,000 into a budget to open an office in Ottawa so somebody else, other than the Premier, can go up and say: Don't bother to change equalization. That is okay. Carry on. We will suffer for another five years before we even ask about it or talk about it again.

Not only that; he wants to be friends with our federal Minister of Natural Resources for the Liberal government who has said, when the Prime Minister, who is out seeking re-election today, who has given no commitments to Newfoundland and Labrador about anything - now, we have a wonderful relationship. We have a marvelous relationship. We are really good buddies. The federal minister, who is from here - you would hardly believe it - said exactly what Mike Harris said a few years ago when we were seeking changes to equalization. He said: You can't expect to have your cake and eat it too.

Now, I would understand that, sure, all of us - as a matter of fact, again, when Mike Harris, as the Premier of Ontario, said that in advance of a Premiers meeting three years ago, this Legislature voted unanimously to condemn him, including the current Premier, because Mike Harris said it. He had no right, as the Premier of Ontario, to suggest that we were getting enough from equalization. You could not expect any changes, because it was like having your cake and eating it too. We condemned him, so much so that by the time we got to the meeting in Victoria, with myself as the Premier making the representation, he changed his mind, signed on, and said: I am sorry I said that. The equalization formula should be changed, and it should be changed right away.

Today, when our own minister said it, I just about fell out of my shoes, that a Newfoundland and Labrador based politician of any stripe, in any position, would say, with respect to equalization: Oh, we don't need to change equalization, because you cannot expect to have your cake and eat it too. Our Premier says: Oh, that is okay, that is all right. Don't say anything bad about the federal minister, I want to be his friend. Well, you can't be friends with people who don't agree with you on issues that are important to Newfoundland and Labrador.

All this said, Madam Chairperson, if we are going to have our Premier defending the federal minister, who is from here, who is saying that Ottawa is right when they don't want to change equalization and we are wrong, what are you going to accomplish? What are you opening an office for? What purpose will be served by opening an office? You have already told them you don't want any changes. What are you sending somebody up there for? What is the purpose? What is the point?

We have the same thing that was mentioned today, the Atlantic Accord, our share of the revenues from the offshore. The same federal minister, who our Premier doesn't want to say anything about, was on Issues and Answers on NTV a week ago, Sunday, saying: Oh, by the way, the Accord works wonderfully well. Newfoundland collects all the money, sure. All the revenue are actually paid to Newfoundland and Labrador. The problem is we don't get to keep it. It is no good to pay it to us if we have to, then, just take it in, put in in another envelope, and send it off to Ottawa. That is what happens to it. The issue is: Are we going to get to keep any of it?

The federal minister was down here saying: It is not working too badly, because we actually get the money paid to the provincial government. The problem is, with the Accord and equalization, you then have to send it on up to Ottawa, to pay them back. You have the federal minister saying: You can't have your cake and eat it too. The whole argument is, we need our cake and we need to eat it too, for at least a decade or so, so we will have a chance to stand on our own two feet.

Then, a week later, two days ago, our Premier is on the same program defending the federal minister again, saying: Well, you can't be too hard on the federal Minister of Natural Resources because I want to be his friend. The interviewers kept saying, but, he says that you are doing okay with the Atlantic Accord. You say you want a new deal. You both can't be right. He said: Oh, don't be too hard on the federal minister.

What are we going to open an office for? I thought the whole idea of opening an office was to go up and try to convince the upper Canadians of our case. We have our own federal minister who doesn't even believe in it, and we have a Premier who will not even chastize the federal minister, that we have a budget right here before us in the Executive Council Estimates that says it is really important. The whole world is going to change if we can only take some buddy of the Premier's - I wonder who it is going to be? I wonder if there is going to be an advertisement through the Public Service Commission for that job, or whether it will be a political appointee well-known to the Premier, who will go up and make a hundred-and-something-thousand dollars a year to sit around and drink coffee in Ottawa? Because they will not care what that person says. They will listen to the Premier, and if the Premier is saying, I agree with the federal minister that we should not change equalization, I agree with the federal minister from Newfoundland and Labrador that you are doing okay with the offshore, then what is the point in wasting the money on the office?

Let me tie it into this. I said before, Madam Chairperson, that it has been done before and abandoned. The Premier, by the way, visited Europe recently and what did he want to do? Open an office. Brother, there is the answer. The answer to everything is open - I hope he does not go to Hong Kong any time soon because, by the way, we used to have an office in Hong Kong. Guess what? The fellow who was over there - somebody went over on a trade mission one year and, a couple of years later, they had forgotten about him. He was over there for three years. A great big office up in a big high-rise in Hong Kong, trying to attract business from Hong Kong to Newfoundland and Labrador because some other Premier went to Hong Kong, like our current Premier went to Europe, and said: We should have an office over there. Wouldn't it be great? The next thing you know, he will be down in South America somewhere. We will have offices everywhere. Meanwhile, we will be laying off 4,000 or 5,000 people in our own Province. How is that going to help us?

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Madam Chairperson, there is another issue I would like to deal with the next time I am speaking. I am sure there are going to be lots of other people who want to have a few words about this. I will not talk about the office any more. I will come back to another topic the next time around.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak again on the issues of Executive Council.

It is interesting that in the Budget that was delivered on March 30 and read by the Minister of Finance, one of the things that was said under Investing in Our Future was, "Leadership on business growth will come from the top. We are dedicating $1 million to establish a new Department of Business, led by..." - who? - "...the Premier, to play a leading role in attracting new business and investment to the province."

Okay, the Premier is going to have $1 million in a budget to open up a new Department of Business. Now, there is not much said about the new Department of Business yet, except for the splashy ads that we saw in The Telegram, where the Public Service Commission went out of the ordinary and hired a consulting firm, at $200 an hour, to draft ads that would appeal to a national interest right across our country. We had to get the right person to head up that particular Department of Business. They are also going to get $200 an hour for weeding through the applications, and they are also going to get $200 an hour for checking all the references on those applications. They are also going to get $200 an hour for interviewing a short list of potential candidates for that job. They are going to get $200 an hour, I would say, for notifying the ones who were not on the short list, and they are going to get $200 an hour for making recommendations to the Premier and Executive Council on who they should hire. Prior to doing that, I am sure they are going to be checking every aspect on the resume for those potential candidates. All of that is in addition to the $1 million for the new Department of Business. That is extra. That will not be tallied up until all of that stuff is in place.

Of course, they might need those consultants, that they hired through the Public Service Commission, to monitor the progress and evaluate the people, whomever they hire, after six months on the probationary period of the job, to see if they met these expectations that were outlined in the job description brought forward by the Public Service Commission through the consulting firm. At $200 an hour, there is going to be quite a bill by the time everything is said and done to hire people to head up that new department.

Then, of course, all of this comes under the Department of Business and under Executive Council and Executive Support. I would have to question a couple of areas there under Executive Support, Grants and Subsidies, $321,000. I would like to know who those grants and subsidies are going to go to. Under the Rural Secretariat, now, I do not know if the Minister of Innovation - I think that is what it is called - Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I think that is the new name. I wonder, has she had any success with provincial-federal relationships that have been forged by the Premier in getting a new contract signed, that will actually keep those people in their jobs in all those Economic Zone Boards? I wonder if she has had any success in forging a new agreement between herself and Ottawa, because that is where it counts when you can get money to run those programs.

I know in Economic Zone Board 12, which is in my district, we have - we had, I would say - a good array of professional people, and when you look at the fact that Central Newfoundland is very big into mining now, I guess it is probably the most active part of the Province outside of Voisey's Bay. We had a geologist on hand, which was a great asset to the Economic Zone Board. We had an agricultural specialist, where we were looking at trying to look at new industry, and farming is one that the Premier has touted as being a good area of potential for this Province.

If you do not have a provincial-federal agreement in place, how can you hold on to these professionals? We are going into month eight of the new government, and it appears that they have not been successful in attracting any new monies from Ottawa. In fact, if anything, there is monies from Ottawa actual leaving the Province.

This is one area where the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development could make a huge difference if she was able to sew up a deal with Ottawa. I do not know if that was the intention of the Ottawa office, to actually invite over someone from the federal government to the Ottawa Office, and sit down and go over some of these contracts that have expired and we do not have money in them right now, because that is one of the shortcomings of Ottawa, the federal government. They introduce programs from time to time, and they work pretty good - some of them do - and all of a sudden they will pull the plug on a program that has been a huge benefit to this Province. This is one of them, the funding to the Economic Zone Boards that they decided to pull out of, and just in the time that these Economic Zone Boards had been making some huge progress. I can tell you, first-hand, that Economic Zone Boards 12 has been a model for all of the Economic Zone Boards throughout the Province, so I think it is very imperative that the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, or maybe the Premier himself, would put that item on his agenda the next time he is in Ottawa, because it is one that really needs attention.

I would like to find out what the grants and subsidies are under the Rural Secretariat, and who will they be going to? It is probably not known at this point but I am sure there will be many grants and subsidies, but when you look at the fact that this government has decided, in their wisdom, what their priorities are....

It is easy to stand up and look at a business plan, because that is what the budget of this Province is. It is a collection of numbers and figures and it comes out to $4 billion, actually, in the end. When you look at all the money that is spent in this Province and all the revenue that comes in and the shortfall that we have, it is in the range of $4 billion. Now, a government is always looked at, on how they treat their people. If you are looking at this Budget as just a business plan, you will be able to go ahead and make the harsh decisions that this government has made because I do not think for one minute there was any consultation at all when it came to closing down Human Resources and Employment offices across our Province. Even members on the government side were just as shocked as the people out in the public when they learned about that information.

Judging from the number of people who use the Human Resources and Employment offices - and I know because I deal with them every day of the week - a lot of them, unfortunately, do not have access to a telephone or a computer and they rely on going into the office on a face-to-face exchange and many of them ask for more than the guidelines that you would see printed in a manual for social services. Many of them need direction in their lives and they rely on that face-to-face contact to find out how to get things done. Lots of times, somebody will need to go to a specialist appointment in St. John's, and if you cannot actually go in and sit across the desk from a representative who works in Human Resources and Employment, or welfare as people would generally know it, or social services, it is very difficult to explain over the telephone; and then, of course, you need to pick up a cheque. Most people, when they want to take a child into St. John's for a specialist appointment, will have to go into Social Services or Human Resources, Labour and Employment, which it is called right now, and they will probably want an advance. They will have to get money enough to get a bus fare or a taxi fare and money enough to get a lunch, when they go on that bus, for themselves and their child. They will have to also stay in St. John's. Probably it will be in a hostel or probably it will be with friends. Whatever the case might be, they will have to explain their situation directly across the desk or counter.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: I will just be a moment, if you will give me a minute, please.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MS THISTLE: I was just making the comparison of choices by this government. When you look at people issues first, it is difficult to justify an office in Ottawa when there are people who demand the ordinary services of the day and they should have the ordinary services of the day.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to rise to make a few comments on the subject that is before us here today, that of the Executive Council. I want to make a few comments regarding the office in Ottawa and whether or not it is something that is required, given the fact that we have seven MPs representing us in Ottawa, Madam Chair, and six Senators. I am wondering how government views the role of our MPs, who are duly elected by the people of the Province to provide representation to us in Ottawa.

I heard previous speakers today talking about the fact that, out of 308 federal seats we have seven in this Province, which is sort of minuscule compared to the total number. I want to say, Madam Chairperson, that seven may be relevant following this election, depending upon the choices the people in this country make. Following this election, Madam Chair, if things work out the way that many people predict, we will have in this country, after June 28, a minority government. Then, Madam Chair, maybe there are other people - besides the majority governing Liberals that we have had for the past number of years - who will be able to have pretty influential weight when it comes to decisions that are being made. I would suggest that would place this Province in the best political position that we have been in, in many, many years, if we were to have a minority government following the June 28 election.

Madam Chair, we also heard talk about a Triple E Senate, and the Senate in general. I would question the fact whether or not there is a Senate required at all. We have, I do not know the exact number, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred Senators who are being paid pretty lucrative salaries along with their transportation budget and their office staff, who really, as I see it, perform very little functions other than rubber stamping. I question the necessity for them at all. There have even have been reports, Madam Chair, of one person being in Mexico for about six or seven years before anybody even discovered he was missing, drawing a salary. I have to question any organization where a person can be in Mexico for six or seven years, without coming back to the country even, and that organization still being able to exist and tolerate something like that. It is not what type of Senate we have, Madam Chair, it is whether we need one at all, that should be the focal point of the question.

We also talk about the cost, Madam Chair, of the office that the government is going to open in Ottawa, $350,000. While that might not seem like a lot of money to some people, I can tell you that if you break down that $350,000 in this Province, it would fulfill many needs that people have today. It would fulfill one need, Madam Chair, that I addressed a couple of times today in the House, about the travel subsidy for people who travel on medical from Labrador West to Goose Bay, a total cost $40,000. That would be more than ample to take care of that need and identifying causes in other areas of the Province, Madam Chair, where this money could be utilized as well to provide for things that our citizens have been going without for many, many years.

If we establish an office in Ottawa, Madam Chair, with a full-fledged staff and an operational budget, again, I go back to the role of our MPs: Are we to say that, because we have that office in Ottawa, we are not going to go through our MPs anymore, who have been duly elected by the people of the Province? Who are we going to request meetings through? Normally now it is done through the MPs of the Province, probably the federal minister, or the regional MP for a certain area of the Province that is effected by whatever we may be going to Ottawa to discuss. Generally we have their office make all the arrangements and organize things. Are we going to not use that system anymore, and just go our own way and avoid them altogether? Madam Chair, I don't think that would make for very good relations with the people who have been elected to represent us in Ottawa.

Who is going to take the lead on the different cases? We have seen, Madam Chair, just last week or the week before, where the Premier and a couple of other people went to Europe. There was no co-operation there when it comes to the federal MP for Labrador, who, by the way, spirited the 5 Wing Goose Bay file for a long, long time in getting the Province on board to become involved in it. He was not consulted on the trip to Europe. He was not invited to participate in this trip. That is an area where they could have involved the co-operation of our federal politicians without having an office in Ottawa, Madam Chair.

We have to look at this in its context and break it down. It is the same thing, Madam Chair, I would suggest as electing forty-eight MHAs in the Province and then every single town council in the Province sending someone to have an office here in St. John's to represent them. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The fact that we have an office in the Nation's Capital, to me, doesn't necessarily mean that our needs are going to be met any better, that we are going to be able to advance our arguments and be more successful in obtaining the things we want;

even such things as signing an undertaking, Madam Chair, that a lot of members here have advocated. Get everybody who is running in the federal election to sign an undertaking that they will argue and defend and fight for the things that we need in this Province and the things that are important, like the offshore jurisdiction when it comes to our fisheries, like the case for the Atlantic Accord where our revenues are at stake, where we are not receiving from the royalties that are coming in, and all of these other things. I don't see the point in asking somebody who is going to sit on the government side to take an undertaking to fight for these things when they are running for office.

We saw a classic example in this Province not too long ago, where the Minister of Natural Resources for the federal government, this Province's representative in Cabinet, didn't even show up for a vote on an issue that he raised in this House many, many times. If he was in this House today and there was somebody else who was the minister in Ottawa, I can assure you that he would take stripes off them, he would hold them accountable and he would put them down like no other person has been put down in this Province before. Did he do it? No, he did not do it. Now, he is suddenly talking about the monies we get from the Atlantic Accord being adequate. I mean, where does it end?

We elect people to go up to represent us in Ottawa but it seems the minute they get there and they get a Cabinet position, then they represent Ottawa to the people in this Province, not the other way around. I think that the current Minister of Natural Resources should be taken to task for that during this election. He should be reminded of that in each and every community that he goes into. Why did he advocate his responsibility to an issue so crucial to this Province and, instead, take the position that he could do more by not taking part in that vote? Well, I do not buy that argument, Madam Chair and I hope most people in this Province do not buy that argument either, because it is wrong.

Also, Madam Chair, we talked about the fact that the Prime Minister of the country - we have to get him on our side to become involved in the things that we need in this Province. Well, let me remind people in this House, let me remind people in the Province that the current Prime Minister of this country - and we had a meeting earlier today where a number of Members of the House of Assembly were present talking about ferry services in this Province and we talked about the need for a shipbuilding policy. Now, nobody should have to explain that to the current Prime Minister of this country who was the owner of the largest shipping company in the country, but where were his ships registered? It was not in Canada. It was not in this country. Who worked on his ships? Not people from Canada. Not Canadian citizens.

MR. HARRIS: He laid them off.

MR. COLLINS: He laid them off. He moved his headquarters and he hired on people from other countries. That is the person who wants to lead this country today and set the standards for what business should be like in this country. I think we are talking to a person who definitely has gone the wrong way. If we want to follow that lead, we will all be laid off and everything will be contracted out to foreigners. I do not think the Prime Minister of this country is the person we should look to to take a lead from when we talk about establishing businesses in this Province because if we follow his example there would be none. There would be none, Madam Chair, because his priority, while aspiring to be the Prime Minister of the country, was to take jobs from this country and put them into foreign countries that pay less money, have less safety standards to meet, less environmental standards to meet and call that a successful business. Well, it may be. It may be a successful business but it is certainly not treating the people of this country in the right way that they should be treated. So, I think there is a lot of soul-searching that should go on in this.

If I could, Madam Chair, I would like to talk -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I would like to talk about the Premier's staff and the staff he is talking about having in Ottawa. What I would like to point out, Madam Chair, is that the Premier of this Province currently has twenty-one staff at his beck and call; twenty-one staff members here in this Province today. There is a Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier; there is a Chief of Staff; a Director of Communications; Special Advisor to the Premier; Principal Assistant to the Premier; Manager of Community Outreach - I do not know what that is; Executive Assistant, there are three; Director of Operations; Personal Assistant to the Premier; Special Assistant to the Premier, there are three of those as well; Secretary Chief of Staff; Policy Analyst; an Administrative Assistant; a receptionist and a Deputy Minister to the Premier, who's salary is $131,000 a year, for a total of $1.5 million that is spent today on the Premier's Office. Why we would need one in Ottawa, in addition to this -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. COLLINS: One point four million dollars, in addition to the office that we are talking about establishing in Ottawa. I think, Madam Chair, that this comprehensive list of staff for the Premier is quite sufficient to handle anything that we may want to deal with and that the Premier may want to deal with during his term of office. I question the necessity of spending $350,000 to open an office in Ottawa. By the way, Madam Chair, that $350,000 is a very, very basic amount. I do not believe, for one minute, that will be the entire cost of having that office there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That won't pay the phone bill.

MR. COLLINS: That will not pay the phone bill, someone said. No, but I do not believe for a minute that we will see benefits come in that will offset the cost of having that office. I think there are better uses for the money. I have noted one in particular, the medical transportation in my district. I am sure every member in this House can mention things in their districts where that $350,000 can go a long way towards alleviating a lot of hardships for people who live in the districts that they represent.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I just want to mention one other topic with respect to the Executive Council Estimates, and that is arising and actually relating to the issue that the member just addressed with respect to the Premier's Office, size of staff and those components. Because, one of the issues - again, it strikes to the heart of the misinformation, Madam Chairperson, that is put out sometimes unintentionally but other times when it is actually crafted into a separate news release. What we received on Budget day was a news release highlighting the Premier's Office, and how it was going to function, because the government did not put out many separate news releases because there was not much to brag about. They thought this was something to brag about, and it talks about openness and accountability coming to the Premier's Office, and there are two issues with it that are totally misrepresented, Madam Chairperson, and it is a serious issue. It is a very serious issue.

One of them was this. It says, "Total salary appropriations associated with the Premier's Office have actually fallen by about $153,000 when compared to the previous administration." They were trying to make the point that they were going to actually run a very frugal office compared to the prior Administration, and so much so that it was crafted into a press release to highlight it and try to get people to pay attention to it.

Well, the numbers that are in these Estimates with respect to the Premier's Office - the Member for Labrador West just looked at it - the number with respect to staff in the Premier's Office, have actually gone up. Last year there was $1.487 million spent in staff in the Premier's Office. This year the Budget is $1.556 for the Premier's Office, so the actual amount compared to what was spent last year is actually expected to increase over what was spent, not decrease.

Now, that is only part of the truth. The other part is, there is a statement saying that former governments like that of Premier Tobin used to have staff people in other places, other than the Premier's - they used to hide them away somewhere else, and it says that we will not do that.

What we have discovered is that there is $150,000 for salaries in the so-called new Department of Business. Madam Chairperson, there is no Department of Business. The $150,000 for salaries in the Department of Business, this so-called Department of Business, already being advertised in the local media and across the country, I understand, it is going to be a deputy minister and a communications person, two staff people. That is all you can get, by the way, for $150,000, and just barely that. That is what the pay scales are, and those two people - so there is no Department of Business, like there is a Department of Natural Resources, or a Department of Transportation and Works, with hundreds of employees, or a Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. There are two more staff people going to sit up in the Premier's Office, with the Premier. That is what the Department of Business is. So, they already have the budget increased over last year; plus, there is another $150,000 for two more staff people who will sit with the Premier. They are not in a separate building. They are not out in rented space across town. They are going to be right next to the Premier so he can deal with them directly.

Then there is another little one in the salary estimates, Madam Chairperson - the first time in history, by the way - there is a deputy minister in the Executive Council. Never been done before. The Clerk of the Executive Council is the deputy minister. It is the senior deputy minister for the whole entire government. His name is on this document. He has become well-known, by the way; it is Mr. Robert Thompson. He is the Clerk of the Executive Council. He is the deputy minister of all deputy ministers, but what this government did, what this Premier did, who put out a press release saying that we have actually less staff, he has a deputy minister for the first time ever in Executive Council. I believe his name is Ross Reid. Do people remember that name? I think a lot of people remember that name, pretty close ties to the Premier. He is trying to suggest that he is not a staff person in the Premier's office. They have described him as a Deputy Minister of the Executive Council, a position that never, ever existed in the history of the Province. Here is the Premier with his own name on it, putting out a press release saying: I will not have people hid away in other places who are actually working for me and pretending they are somewhere else. Right away, he has three of them worth a total of $300,000. The budget is already up over what it was last year and here is another $300,000, and he puts out a press release saying total salary appropriations are gone down. The exact opposite has actually occurred in these documents. The exact opposite has occurred. It has actually gone up by $400,000, which is almost a 25 per cent increase in salaries for last year.

Now, that is out, by the way, under a heading that is saying: Openness and Accountability Comes to the Premier's Office. When you look at the documents, you see this devious little moving of people. First time ever that a person is put in as Deputy Minister of Executive Council. Never happened before. A couple of people going to be in a so-called Department of Business. No department, no other staff, no office, two staff people, a little bit of travel money and a $750,000 slush fund for the Premier. Grants and Subsidies, it is called, at the exact direction of the Premier; not the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, but the Premier.

Then, the other thing in the same release: We are going to drop the travel budget, it says, by 38 per cent. Well, let me tell you about the travel budget for the Premier. The Premier's travel budget, itself, in the Premier's Office, is $231,700. It is down a little bit. There is $50,000 for the Premier to travel as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the same person, by the way. It is not two different people, it is the same person. Last year, the year before or the year before, it was a separate minister with a separate budget. It is the same person, it is the Premier. Thirty-five thousand dollars for travel for the Minister of Business. Guess who that is? That is the Premier.

Here is the Premier with a total travel budget of $316,700, which happens to be $53,000 more than was available for the Premier to travel last year, and what does he put in a press release? He says: The travel budget will drop by 38 per cent. How are we supposed to believe anything that is said, when you get that put into a release, to try to suggest that the travel budget for the Premier is going down when it has gone up by $53,000. They tried to manipulate the press release. They tried to tuck it away in different little places.

We are supposed to sit here, which is why we, as the Official Opposition, find it difficult, if not impossible, to agree with just about anything the Minister of Finance says, but this one has the Premier's own name on it. The Premier put out a press release from his office on Budget day saying: The travel budget will go down. It actually went up by $53,000. He says: We will not have staff hid away other places. All the staff are up in my office. The budget has gone up. He said it was going to go down. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are supposed to stand there and sit there and say: We believe the Premier. We believe the Minister of Finance. That is why we come to these Estimates, Madam Chairperson. Because when you look at the details, that shows the exact opposite of what this press release said.

It is bad enough to make a commitment before the election and say: Well, we did not know the state of affairs and we did not have the money, so we said we would put the ferry rates down. But, oh, guess what? We are going to put them up 25 per cent. Blame it on the other crowd, the poor state. Here is the Budget, itself, saying: I am going to put down the amount of travel, it is going to decrease, when it has actually gone up; and, I am going to have fewer staff answering directly to me than the previous Administration, and it is $300,000 more for staff instead of going down.

There is a huge credibility gap - a huge credibility gap! - Madam Chairperson. I must say we are extremely disappointed, because it is one thing to just go and make a speech about it, it is one thing to suggest you believe in it, but when you try to highlight it - this is a Budget Highlight, that is what it is described as, the Premier and the Premier's Office bragging about doing things more frugal and, when we look at the Departmental Salary Details, which is what this debate we are having now is all about, when we look at the Estimates, you find out that they absolutely misrepresented the facts; absolutely misrepresented.

This time, it is not the Minister of Finance who has done it many times, it is not another minister who has done it a few times, because they have all done it several times, it is the Premier himself with his own stamp right on it, being less than honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is a terrible thing, for a Premier to want to try and play petty politics and do a comparison with a previous administration that proves that he, himself, has made a completely false statement.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I appreciate the opportunity, Madam Chairperson, to make that point and I look forward to further debates about all aspects of the Budget when we go to the concurrence debate later in this week or next week.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to say a few words on the Executive Council Estimates that are now before the House. There are number of issues, of course. When you are dealing with the Executive Council a lot of, actually, serious matters can be discussed here, from the role of the Lieutenant-Governor to the Premier's Office, the various items in the Intergovernmental Affairs, and there is a lot of scope for comment on some of these Budget items.

My colleague for Labrador West, for example, talked at some length about the number of positions in the Premier's office and how well staffed the Premier is. I have to say, I was surprised myself to see the Premier's office so well staffed with such a group of well-paid people. I did notice that not included in the Premier's office was the salary for the Deputy Minister to the Premier, who apparently has his salary included in the Executive Council.

On the next page, in the Cabinet Secretariat, even though he is Deputy Minister to the Premier and was announced as such and called as such, his salary does not appear in the Premier's office, but you do have a Parliamentary Assistant who is here in this House, the Member for Conception Bay South, a Chief of Staff, a Director of Communications, and he has a Special Advisor, a Principal Assistant, he has three Executive Assistants, he has a personal assistant and another special assistant and a secretary to the chief of staff. There is a whole series of people, all of them there assisting the Premier in his work.

My colleague made the very excellent point that if you have all this staff, at senior levels, being paid significant salaries, why do you need an additional amount of money to operate a special office in Ottawa. I have to say that a special office in Ottawa is an idea which I think is a good one. I think it is a good idea, but I think it requires a little bit of decision and vision on the part of the Premier and his government to set it up properly.

We do have seven MPs in Ottawa, as my colleague has pointed out, and six Senators, and they have a role to play in the Senate in the House of Commons. I think there is another role that could be played by people in Ottawa, perhaps some of the other staff of the Premier. He doesn't need all this staff here. Perhaps he should send Mr. Reid to Ottawa, his Deputy Minister. He is very familiar with Ottawa. He knows a lot of people in the bureaucracy. He has been there and spent a lot of time in the Prime Minister's office. He knows how Ottawa works. Rather than have him here in the Cabinet Secretariate along with special assistants and deputy ministers and the Clerk of the Executive Council, who I understand is doing a very good job, and a Deputy Clerk and Assistant Deputy Ministers, three of them, all in the Cabinet Secretariate, send Mr. Reid to Ottawa and let him do his work up there instead of doing it down here, because of his familiarity. Probably he could send a few of his special assistants up there, and operate an office and do some good in Ottawa.

At the bureaucratic level - and I don't mean that word in a negative way. I have a lot of respect for bureaucrats who do a good job, senior bureaucrats in particular, who understand how policy works. We have got to have things happening in Ottawa. If there are 5,000 employees in the Department of National Resources, somebody has to be asking the question, at more than one level: Why is there not one in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Now, you can ask that question in the House of Parliament, you can ask that question to the Senate, but you know we also have to have some people at the bureaucratic level who know how Ottawa works and who can have some influence, on an ongoing basis, where decisions are being made. Many decisions in Ottawa are not actually made - this might come as a surprise to some people - are not actually made at the Cabinet table, are not actually made in the Prime Minister's office, but many, many, many of the decisions in Ottawa, by virtue of necessity really, have to be made at the bureaucratic level.

If you have a group of people in Ottawa who are dedicated to following a whole series of issues and files that are important to us, decisions that are being made on an ongoing constant level, that you cannot necessarily expect a Member of Parliament to be able to have any influence on - particularly, the backbenchers do not have a big influence. People in Opposition can ask questions and certainly get a lot of attention on issues, but a lot of decisions get made at the bureaucratic level, and having a pipeline on an ongoing basis in Ottawa to those decisions is very helpful and very useful, but we do not need to find an extra $350,000 for it because we have a lot of very well-paid people in the Premier's Office, and some people, including the Deputy Minister to the Premier, who is not even listed as a staff member of the Premier's Office, who is in fact the Deputy Minister to the Premier. We have never had a Deputy Minister to the Premier before. I do not think the previous Premier had a deputy minister, nor the previous Premier, nor the previous Premier. This is a very new post, but it does not even appear - and maybe somebody can explain why that is - here in the Premier's Office contingency.

We do have that question and that problem, but we do think that it is about time that we got this office up and running if there is a role for it; if there is a role for it that makes sense. Now, my colleague was not convinced, and is not convinced, that it is a sensible role for it, but that demands this Premier and this government to define a role, to ensure that the role is a positive one, and show some vision and initiative in making it work for us.

We had the Premier talk willy-nilly last week about - I do not know, the Member for Lake Melville, if he wants to send him over to Europe permanently or not, but he talked about having some presence in Europe. He wanted to have a presence in Europe. Now, I do not know. They had a presence in Europe last week when the Member for Lake Melville was there. They did not take along the Member for Labrador, the MP, who has an office set up working on this very issue for the last two years. They did not take him along. He probably has all kinds of contacts already, and could have introduced the Member for Lake Melville to a whole bunch of people who might have been interested in 5 Wing Goose Bay, but what the Premier is talking about doesn't appear in the Budget, never appeared in any speech before, of having some kind of permanent presence in Europe when he has does not even have his office set up in Ottawa yet, so we are looking forward to hearing when Mr. Reid is going to be sent to Ottawa because he is an extra person here. He is an extra person in - not even in the Premier's Office, even though he is the deputy minister. He is here in the Cabinet Secretariat, and he is an extra person there. We have a very competent Clerk of the Executive Council who is doing that job and function, and the Executive Council, the Executive Support and the Cabinet Secretariat, seem to have plenty of roles there. Along those lines - I do not know how the time is going. I am looking at the Government House Leader. Are we going to keep going, or is there a plan to -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Okay, fine. We do have a motion that has already been passed. I take it we are not closing at 5:30, so we will carry on.

The whole idea of what happens now that there is a federal election call, I think, is a very important one. Of course, we all have our political parties. The three sides of the House have their political parties in leadership and campaigns going on, but we did have a very interesting suggestion last week by the Opposition House Leader that we strike an all-party committee. It would not have to go on for very long, but to try to come up with a series of issues that we would like to present to all people running in all parties. I called it a manifesto, a manifesto for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier has a good start on it, actually. He wrote letters to a number of people. I do not know if he wrote one to the Prime Minister. He wrote one to Belinda Stronach. He wrote one to Tony Clement, and he wrote one to Steven Harper. He wrote one to Jack Layton, asking what he would do as Leader of the Conservative Party. He has fixed that, and actually sent one to Jack Layton as Leader of the NDP. We got the responses to those letters, and that it a good start. There may be other issues that were not included in that, but if we had an all-party committee sit down for a couple of days and put together a list of issues of importance to Newfoundland and Labrador that we can all agree on - that is important, that we all agree. I think there is probably a whole series that, regardless of our political stipe, whether you are Conservative or Progressive Conservative - because I think they still call themselves Progressive Conservatives although I do not think they have the Member for Port de Grave convinced. He thinks they are right-wing Conservatives, but they still call themselves Progressive Conservatives opposite.

The Progressive Conservatives in this Province, the Liberals in this Province, and the NDP in this Province, could probably agree on a whole series of issues that, at the provincial level, are important and that we want the candidates running for public office to endorse. If we work together, pulling on the same ore, it would be very important to have the endorsement of the various candidates, because that can then be put to them afterwards, whoever gets elected, whatever the configuration is in the House of Commons, whether it is a minority government with the NDP playing a significant role for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we have a Newfoundland and Labrador MP there, which I am pretty convinced we have, or whatever the configuration of that House is, we will have MPs, all of whom we hope to be committed to a manifesto -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: By leave, just half a minute to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Whoever gets elected, whatever the configuration of the national House is, whether it is a minority Liberal government or a majority Liberal government, a majority Conservative government, a minority Conservative government, we will have Newfoundland and Labrador MPs committed to the good of Newfoundland and Labrador. We should be doing that, not looking for reasons to fight with one another on some of these points but try and find a common ground and put them before the MPs and parties running. We should not be turned down just because it came from the Opposition.

On that note, Madam Chair, I think I have used up my ten minutes at this point. There may be other opportunities to speak a little later in this debate.

Thank you very much.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to and including 3.1.09.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.1.01 to subheads 3.1.09 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.1.09 carried.

CLERK: The total of the Executive Council.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, the total for Executive Council, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the head of expenditure for the Executive Council, without amendment, carried?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I believe the Consolidated Fund Services as well, by agreement.

MADAM CHAIR: By agreement?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to and including 2.1.05.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall subhead 1.1.01 up to and including subhead 2.1.05 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.1.05 carried.

CLERK: The total for the Consolidated Fund Services.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Consolidated Fund Services, total heads, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the revenue for Consolidated Fund Services carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Revenue for Consolidated Fund Services carried, without amendment.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I think by agreement we are going to break for supper until 7:00 p.m. on the clock.

MADAM CHAIR: By agreement the House shall now recess until 7:00 p.m.


May 25, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 35A


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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 2, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 7)

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

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 through 4 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation, which is an act to change the Income Tax Act, 2000, as it affects those paying off student loans.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation that is being brought before the House is a one year, one off deal which would assist some people for one year, particularly those students who have to be: a. residing in Newfoundland and Labrador and; b. have to have the ability to pay off their student loans in the first place. When this idea was first proposed by the previous Administration, they proposed this as a tax benefit for students to try and give them some relief from high student debt, but it has turned out not to be any incentive at all. It does absolutely nothing to increase access to post-secondary education, which is what the whole purpose of student aid is supposed to be. Secondly, it does not do anything for the people who are in the worst circumstances, the people who are trying to get interest relief because they cannot afford to pay down their student loans, the people who are in default, the people who are unable to, because they do not have a job, pay off their student loans. These are the ones who are most burdened and most saddled by a student debt. They get no relief at all, none whatsoever. No help whatsoever from this piece of legislation.

The second thing that happened when the former Liberal Administration brought this bill in was that they - and there has been a bit of debate about this across the floor between the previous government members and the current Administration. The whole tenor of the debate seemed to be about whether or not the program was or was not introduced or when it was introduced, et cetera, but the reality is that neither the previous Administration nor the current Administration did an adequate consultation with those affected by it to the point of going and listening to what students had to say. In fact, the reason given by the previous minister for not implementing this particular measure was that they were going to go through a process of consultation with the students themselves and the student representatives before they would bring any legislation forward.

Well, there were, apparently, some meetings, Mr. Chairman. In fact, a brief was presented by the Canadian Federation of Students to the previous Administration. Now, I do not know if the current Administration had a look at that. I am sure it was there in the files somewhere because I know they did not pick up the phone and consult with the current student union representatives, the Canadian Federation of Students. They did not talk to them about what they thought of the idea that was brought forth by the previous Administration. They came forward themselves and brought forth this, but what that brief said, Mr. Chairman, was that they were opposed. The students themselves were opposed to the idea of tax breaks, after the fact, because it did not address the needs problem. The needs problem has to do with, who can afford to go to university in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Secondly, it did not do anything for people who were forced, because of their high debt load, to leave the Province. This is not giving any incentive to anybody to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. Stay in Newfoundland and Labrador, pay down your debt, you will get a tax break; because it was only intended to operate for one year and that year has gone. So, there is nobody getting any incentive here. There is nobody who is now currently working and living in Newfoundland and Labrador, or no student who is now in Newfoundland and Labrador and is trying to decide: Well, will I go to mainland or elsewhere and get a job or will I stay here in Newfoundland and take advantage of this tax break that I am getting from the provincial government? - because it is not on.

This is a retroactive tax break for people who happen to fit the categories that are in the legislation that the minister has brought forward. That is all it is. It is all over before it starts. There is nobody getting any incentive about this at all. In fact, this is a waste of $3 million. It is waste of $3 million because it does not do anything to increase accessability to university education or post-secondary education. It does not do anything to provide an incentive for people to stay or for students to stay here in Newfoundland and Labrador and work. It does not do anything to help those who are most worse off as a result of having high student loan debt or the inability to pay because they do not have a job. So, it fails on all three counts. It does not provide access. It does not provide relief for those who are worst off, and does not provide any incentive to accomplish the objective that was set forth by the previous Administration in what it suggested.

What we have really is a farce, Mr. Chairman. We have this government going through the motions of spending $3 million, because, make no mistake, a tax break or a tax relief is an expenditure. I am sure it will be welcomed to those who fill out the tax forms who know nothing about this, who know absolutely nothing about this, but when they get their tax form and say: Did you pay any student loan debt in the year 2003? If they say yes, and they provide information to prove that they did, they will save a few dollars on their tax return. I am sure they will be delighted to do that. Who wouldn't? But, in terms of public policy, Mr. Chairman, what is it doing to attack the real problem that we have in this Province with high student loan debts?

With limited access to post-secondary education, because of the high cost, and with students coming out, in some cases, not able to get jobs here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and with such high debts that they are forced, even if they wanted to practice or work in Newfoundland - practice medicine here, in the case of doctors, work here in the case of people - who may have options to go elsewhere and they say: No, no, I would like to stay here and work in my community, whether I am from rural Newfoundland or work in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am forced to take that job somewhere else because it pays me enough money to be able to pay down my student loan. Because those students, those young people, want a life, Mr. Chairman. They have been sold a bill of goods to this extent that they went and got a post-secondary education. They went to university or they went to the College of the North Atlantic. They got an education that their parents had been encouraging them to get and now they come out owing $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000. They are saying to themselves: I've been sold a bill of goods here. Now I want to have a life. How can I have a life if I can't get a job, the right kind of job here in Newfoundland and Labrador? I end up having to go away. I have been actually snookered into the notion of not being able to stay in the Province and having to go away and not having that choice.

That is what we need to address in a progressive student aid policy. We have not heard it yet, from this government what they intend to do. I know the Government House Leader, when he was Leader of the Opposition, I remember him running in an election talking about free tuition, talking about ensuring that we have a good and universal access to post-secondary education. But, we have not yet heard this government's policy as to how they are going to solve the problem that students have in trying to get - ensure they have good education without being burdened with an extensive debt. That situation has changed totally, Mr. Chairman, not only in our generation, my generation, when I went to university, when the Government House Leader went to university, or when the Leader the Opposition went to university. We had, relatively, a cheap education because it was accessible to everybody. It was not exactly fair because people who came to university, whether in St. John's or in Corner Brook, from outside those areas had an additional burden.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He might be a bit younger than me, but we are in the same generation, I say. It might not include you, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, because you are younger still, but I would have to hazard a guess at least, that the Government House Leader and I are in the same generation. Certainly, our children are, I would say that. Perhaps our spouses are too, but I may be stretching it.

Mr. Chairman, the point is this, that even in the last fifteen years we have seen an enormous increase in the average student debt for people coming out of a four-year degree in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1989 it was around $5,000 or $6,000. By 1996 it was up to $24,000. We are seeing it higher still for some people in some professions.

I had a meeting earlier this year with medical students at Memorial. It was very interesting to hear their perspective about why it is we are having trouble recruiting doctors to work in Newfoundland and Labrador. The solution, as far as they are concerned, in all this talk about sending people out to recruit and changing lifestyles and all this, all of this is less important to them than the actual amount of student debt that they have at the end of the day. You cannot force people to work in places by signing contracts. There are always ways out of it. There is always somebody prepared to write a bigger cheque.

I say to members opposite and to all members, that someone coming out of Memorial University with a medical degree and a $65,000, or $75,000, or $85,000 debt are not going to be able to work where they might want to work, in the Twillingate hospital or somewhere in rural Newfoundland where they are familiar with, or where they come from even, because there is somebody prepared to write a cheque and say: Here is a cheque. Well, here are three cheques. Here is a cheque for your student debt. Here is the cheque for a signing bonus and here is a salary better than what you can get in Newfoundland and Labrador. Those students, as much as they would want to stay, in many cases, and practice their medicine in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are working down in Atlanta or they are working in North Carolina, or they are working somewhere else where someone is prepared to pay that debt off, but if we had a student aid system, if we had an education system that did not force students into big debts - whether they be medical students or whether they be any other students - than we would have a much better opportunity of ensuring that the education that we are providing through the College of the North Atlantic and through Memorial University of Newfoundland -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: - but that the education that the taxpayer - we keep complaining that they are not providing enough money to the College of the North Atlantic, but at least we are paying for it. We are paying for that education through the College of the North Atlantic, through Memorial University and we are providing an education for our young people, which we have an obligation to do. We have an obligation to do that for our children, to make sure that they get properly educated so they have a better chance to build a life for themselves and a future for our Province. We are losing those people, we are losing that valuable education because those students are being forced to leave.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation is very cynical. It does not do anything to help young people stay here. It does not do anything to help those who have a significant burden of debt and are not able to pay it off, and it does not do anything to provide better access to Memorial University or to the College of the North Atlantic. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think that this legislation is bad, is ill advised, is negative and is done without consultation with the students and with their representatives. That I know, Mr. Chairman, because I have been told that by representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students, that they had a consultation with the previous Administration. They told them that they did not support it. They told them that they were against it. Yet, this Administration, without any consultation, is bringing it in and is spending, through tax expenditure, $3 million that is not accomplishing any of the positive objectives that I talked about.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank members for their leave, but this is legislation that we certainly cannot support. It contrary to any notions of fairness and principled advancement of students, the cause of student aid and young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can tell from the excitement across the way that they are delighted I am standing to speak. I know that this bill, Bill 7, will pass. I know it will pass. I can tell you, from this side of the House, we will not be voting in approval of this bill. This was a bill that I intended to bring to the House, but we all know the results of the last election, October 21. Now the new government is bringing this bill to the House. I wish they had intended to keep this bill, but this is just going to be a flash in the pan. It is going to be brought to the House and then it is going to be tossed out. The governing party will agree with this bill. It was for a one year exposé and the year has passed, because the time limit on it was April 30, 2004, when anybody who was going to prepare an income tax return already did that and now it is done.

I think the intent of the goodness of this bill is definitely lost, because as a former Administration we looked around to see what we could do to improve the lives of students in our Province. We had done a lot of things in August, 2002, by overturning the student loan program. We had done everything we could do as a provincial government. We had lowered tuition rates; the lowest in the country. Actually, the lowest Canadian tuition rate for Canadians, but Quebec had the lowest tuition rate for their residents only. We overhauled the complete student aid program so that we could provide every possible advantage to our students. We did all of that. It was the students who actually celebrated the victory, because it was through their work in coming to government and the fact that government listened, the previous government, that they were able to receive a lot of the benefits that are now in effect.

The last one we did, and that was to entice young people to actually start a career in our Province. We said: What can we do that will encourage young people to stay in our Province and work here, have a family, start a life, contribute to our economy? We knew that we wanted to give young people a break. So, we said: How do you that fairly so that everybody can take advantage of that particular advantage? So, we decided in last year's Budget - there was $3 million, and that is nothing to sneeze at, $3 million. We decided we would put $3 million into the pockets of young people who were actually working here in our Province. We said, how can we do that? We announced in our Budget we would have $3 million for students who had acquired a job in our Province. Of course, it has always been the complaint that anybody working for the first time probably starts off at a lesser salary because they have no experience and are usually starting off on the first rung of the ladder.

After the announcement was made in the Budget, we then undertook to consult with students and say: How in the world can we spend $3 million to put directly into the pockets of students? Naturally, students would have preferred that you give them money in the way of a grant, directly a grant to students, but we knew we had to do something which would give working students, or working people who were previous students, an opportunity to start a life and start paying back their student loans and start contributing to the economy of our Province. The end result was a bill called, Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. That would have provided up to as high as 30 per cent of a tax credit for single parent students and disabled persons. Then that rate would drop down to 20 per cent for all other people.

When we were the former Administration we notified Revenue Canada last summer that this was going to be in effect. We had to notify them by last summer, we did that. Unfortunately, the new government that came in has seen it - they have made their choices and their choices did not include any new benefits for students, or students working for the first time in our Province with salaries up as high as $30,000. In fact, they did not help any students because this particular Budget that this new government brought down was actually a Budget against students. There was absolutely nothing in this Budget for students. In fact, it took away things that students already had. They provided a tuition freeze at the College of the North Atlantic and they provided one at Memorial University. Then, in the same Budget, they said to both of those institutions: go back and find $2 million, each one of you. Of course, when they announced that, the College of the North Atlantic had already been out and said what they were going to do. They are going to cut programs. They are going to cut teachers. I do not know if that will be the end of their cuts or not but they said that they could not sustain tuition freezes and tuition reductions unless government were to give them extra money.

The alarming part about all of this is the fact that in the Blue Book, the much touted Blue Book, the Tory blueprint - there was a commitment made in that book. The commitment was to the College of the North Atlantic and it was also to Memorial University. They would ensure that both of those institutions, that are in the business of public education, would be certain of having an operating budget which would take into account tuition freezes. What did they do on March 30? They went back on their word - Broken promises! - because they did not support the College of the North Atlantic and they did not support Memorial University. They said go back now and find that $2 million, each one of you, and this is the result we have today. There was nothing in that Budget for students. In fact, it was just a $250,000 study the study announced. Everybody knows when you start studying post-secondary education, if you start studying health care, if you start studying anything, any department or program within government, it only means one thing, you are going to find a way to siphon off some of the funding that is going to that particular program or that particular department. All of us know all about that.

The victory that students had gained in the previous year, they lost it this year. I think this is a shame because people paying on a student loan, they had paid $1,000 on the principal of their student loan. If their income was, for example, $30,000 or less, they had an opportunity to get back a tax credit of $300. Now, you cannot sneeze at that. Maybe it does not mean much to a lot of people but, I can tell you, if you are a student and you have $300 coming back to you in the form of an income tax refund, it means quite a bit. There is no question about that. Most students will probably pay more than $1,000 on their student loan every year. So many of them would probably pay a couple of thousand dollars or $3,000. That would make a big difference, having that disposable income to use. Government would get back that money anyway because once students had the extra money to spend, they were actually going to be purchasing something here in our Province. Maybe they were going to find a way to lease a new car, buy a piece of furniture or buy a new computer. All of this turns up in the form of retail sales tax, one way or another, and the Province does better.

When you give money to people it ends up to be disposable income. It generally all comes back in some form or another but if you do not have that extra money to spend, it is quite often that students will pay the minimum amount on their student loans and many times they will be defaulted. Their loans will be in default for not being able to make their payments. The idea of this bill was to ensure that students would find a reason to stay in our Province instead of going to Alberta and Western Canada and the U.S. and all of those places where they would be earning a bit more money and paying off their student loan. This was an opportunity for students to stay right here in our very own Province, make payments on their loan and start a future here.

So, I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for students. I do not know, I have spoken to many of them since this bill was introduced and they are not happy with it. They do not understand that the new government which was full of promises, and recorded them in the book that we see here tonight, the Tory Blue Book, full of promises and all of a sudden -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

I will have more opportunities as the night rolls on.

Thank you.

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

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 through 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 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'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The long title is carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 7 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have passed the Heads of Expenditure for Executive Council and the Consolidated Fund Services without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matter to them referred, have passed the Heads of Expenditure for Executive Council and the Consolidated Revenue Fund without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we revert back? I think we have a further report from the Member for Bonavista South. The Chair apologizes.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 7 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Whole has reported that they have considered the matters to them referred and have reported they have passed Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Income Act, 2000, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the bill be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Act, 2000. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that its title shall appear as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Act, 2000," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: When shall it appear on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, yes.

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

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill 22)

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

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

This bill is being brought forward by the department that I have the responsibility for, Mr. Speaker, Bill 22. While it is not a large bill, it is a fairly important one, for a couple of reasons. It is explained in pretty much detail in terms of the clauses in the bill. I will refer to, generally, what the bill is about.

The bill would amend section 11 of the Mineral Act to permit the minister - in this case myself, as the minister responsible for the department - to suspend any person's right, for example, to stake out claims where the person has not complied with the rules respecting payment in the proposed subsection. I think that is a fairly standard thing that one should do or would normally be expected of one who is operating in the Province.

Basically, the bill also enables, for the first time - this was an initiative that was considered by the former government but it never had the opportunity, it is my understanding, to bring it forward. Clauses 2 through 6 deal with the ability of anybody making applications for map-stake licences under the act to be made electronically. This is considered to be a fairly significant improvement.

Mr. Speaker, while this is not a significant piece of legislation in terms of length and breadth, it does and it will speed up some of the staking claims that will be made through the act. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully put it forward for second reading and the ensuing debate.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, it is obviously a very necessary - I would not classify it as housecleaning because that would imply something that might be just tiding up. This is indeed some substantial type of amendments here. Albeit, second reading is more for the general principles and purposes of the legislation. We will get an opportunity at the committee stage to delve into some of the details but - for example, the need for clause 1. I will be questioning at the committee stage, for example, how big a problem is it right now, where people try to do it and not pay their fees and so on?

Under clause 5, the Mineral Rights Adjudication Board, why the rationale right now to expand the jurisdiction of the board? It appears to deal with certain issues of suspension and approvals. Just how much will this fetter the authority and the minister and so on? These are the types of questions I will be delving into in committee stage. Also, the issue of clause 7: Why the delay on the implementation of two subsections? I presume it is because we need some time to electronically get ready and so on and have the necessary mechanisms, shall we say, in place to actually implement it. No problem whatsoever with the bill in its current form, other than to have some explanations in committee stage of those concerns.

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

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few short comments on Bill 22 that is before the House this evening. I would just like to talk about the benefits that mining provides to the Province. It is important to facilitate the ease at which claims can be staked. Hopefully, we will see mining exploration increase in this Province over the coming months and years because there is still a lot of territory, both on the Island portion of the Province, but in Labrador in particular, that has not been staked out, that has not had in-depth studies carried out or mineral activity carried out to see what exactly we may have in terms of minerals within our Province. I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if this also means that claims - and I wonder if it goes so far, I say to the minister, of whether or not this means that claims can be staked by the Internet or by other means rather than actually and physically going into an area to do a mineral exploration?

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, anything that encourages or makes easier the prospects of mining activity in the Province is certainly something that would be beneficial because when a claim is made and when a mine does begin operation it does provide a lot of high-paying jobs to the people of the Province. Obviously, that is in the best interest of everyone concerned. I just wonder if the minister would, at some point, answer that question as it relates to the Internet, of whether or not people would be able to stake claims via that method?

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 Mineral Act, Bill 22.

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? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 22)

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

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

Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

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: I had intended to say a few words on this but I saw the minister, herself, had risen to introduce the bill so I do not think we should be voting on it at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair waited until a sufficient amount of time. When nobody was standing -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we can revert to the debate.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to introduce Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. The bill seeks to amend the Highway Traffic Act in four areas: One, it authorizes the provincial government conservation officers to stop vehicles on the highway; two, it clarifies ministerial authority to make regulations respecting commercial carriers; three, it increases fines and penalties for convictions under the act, and four, it authorizes the minister of the department to set a fee for providing accident reports to insurance companies and other parties.

Mr. Speaker, the first change is to provide provincial conservation and forestry officers the authority to stop vehicles on the highway for violations, be it poaching or fishing out of season. This authority is given to the DFO and federal park conservation officers but not to our own officers. The Department of Natural Resources have sought this change for many years. The provision gives provincial conservation and forestry officers authority to stop vehicles on reasonable grounds.

Mr. Speaker, the issue pertaining to section 197 of the act is a clarification. This section authorizes the minister of the department to make regulations respecting a National Safety Code. We want it made very clear that the minister also has the authority to make regulations for the safe operations of commercial trucks, even if it falls outside the National Safety Code. The National Safety Code is a national agreement and some local issues have not necessarily been included. The minister of the department needs the flexibility to address the provincial and local concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we are increasing some penalties for violations under the act. We are proposing increasing the fines for many moving violations to a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $400. We believe the increase in fines will be a stronger deterrent and therefore enhance public safety. These fines have not increased in a number of years. The increase pertain to the common moving violation that jeopardizes public safety, talking on a cellphone, failing to stop at a stop sign or a red light, or failing to obey a sign specifying no left turn. These are common violations that often cause accidents.

Mr. Speaker, we need a greater deterrent for people not to break these important laws. The current fine of $45, to a maximum of $180, is no longer sufficient. The increase also provides for recovery of a small percentage of the costs associated with the enforcement and administration of these laws, which are designed to protect the public. Many of the fines in the schedule are staying the same. We feel the current fines are adequate in these cases.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also increases the penalty for the late payment of fines. We are increasing the penalty by 20 per cent. For example, the penalty will increase from $5 to $6 for every fine up to $50, and from $10 to $12 for every fine between $50 and $100 and so on. The increase will help cover the administrative costs within the court system.

Mr. Speaker, the final proposed change I want to explain is the one that authorizes the minister to set a fee for the provision of accident reports by the Motor Registration Division. Motor Registration must provide accident information to insurance companies and others who request it. The information is certified and stamped. We feel a small fee for this report is reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, we have not indicated the amount of the fine in this bill. I am able to set fees as minister of the department through the fees policy. The department is considering a small fee in the range of $10 to $20. We believe the changes outlined in this amendment are necessary for the efficient operation of government. Also, the fines and penalty increases will provide a greater deterrent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further speakers?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the critic from the Official Opposition, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has some strong ties to my district but I am hoping he is not going to have them that strong and want to move out there so quickly. Not at least until I am ready to go anyway, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this act is one, I guess, that has been necessary to clean up some of the housekeeping details that have been there; for instance, a typo error in the paragraph concerning the commercial motor vehicle in the Highway Traffic Act. The other thing there would be to add a definition to the term of enforcement officer. For some time there has been some confusion in the courts regarding just exactly who was constituted as an enforcement officer, especially when it came to the wildlife section and so on.

For the most part, I do not think this bill has changed since last year, Minister? I think it is the one that has been on the Order Paper since last spring. So, Mr. Speaker, in light of some of the things that have happened with some of the fees and penalties that have happened in the last Budget, I looked at this tonight and in about a year some of the changes here seem a bit exuberant but nevertheless very necessary, I think, Minister, for the sake of acting as deterrents to some of the infractions that take place on our highway. I imagine we will have another opportunity to speak to this in the Committee stage when we move forward.

That is all, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't even listening to you the last time. I assumed that, because of the way things had transpired beforehand, nobody on this side was ready to go and ready to speak.

I just did want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about this bill. The legislation does a number of things, and I guess at second reading we are dealing with the principle behind what is happening here. We are amending the Highway Traffic Act to include, in enforcement officers, other people who are not normally highway traffic enforcement officers, including conservation officers, wildlife officers, and persons designated peace officers under the motorized snow vehicles and all-terrain vehicles regulations, and as well a forestry official. That really increases the capability, I suppose, of enforcing the Highway Traffic Act provisions. I think that is very important.

It is important for a couple of reasons, because a lot of the violations that are happening now are not necessarily on the highways as such, the main highways, that are patrolled by the police. When it comes to all-terrain vehicles and other motorized vehicles, quite often these are happening in small communities that are not regularly patrolled by constabulary officers or regular police forces, so it is kind of important that there be more vigilance about particularly the use of vehicles. That seems to be pretty prevalent these days: young people - when I say young people, I am talking about eight years old, ten years old, eleven years old, twelve years old - driving all-terrain vehicles through communities, on highways, on the old rail beds around the Province, on country roads. I do not object to people having a bit of fun, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very dangerous activity for young children.

We have seen a very front page case in Ottawa in the paper yesterday about an eight-year-old or nine-year-old being killed, driving an all-terrain vehicle, hit a pole and was killed. The only reason the vehicle and the child were discovered was because the father, who apparently had let this child go on the vehicle, was wondering why he was not home at the appointed time, why he was not back yet. They went out looking for him and, here he was. He had somehow or other driven this vehicle into a hydro pole and killed himself. He was wearing a helmet. Well, that doesn't matter much if you are driving a motorized vehicle at a great speed in an accident.

There is just far too much of that going on. I cannot understand it myself, Mr. Speaker. I would be very, very upset if one of my children were allowed by anybody to drive a vehicle of that nature. I have a nine-year-old and a seven-year-old, but apparently children as young as that are being allowed, by some people, to drive these vehicles.

Even at an older level, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no level of maturity of the kids who are driving these things around, and no real understanding of the safety aspects as well. You see them driving around blind corners at great speed. It is a wonder, in many respects, Mr. Speaker, there are not more people injured and killed on them in the Province.

I know there was story on TV last week or the week before, from the Janeway, indicating the high number of children who are admitted to the Janeway Hospital in the course of a year as a result of being in accidents with relation to these vehicles. Usually they are the drivers, or sitting on the back with another young person driving, so we do need to have a high degree of vigilance about these things. In many cases, it is the parents who need to be educated about all of the rules with respect to these.

I have to confess, frankly, that I am not sure what the age is. You would hardly tell what the actual legal age is, for driving all-terrain vehicles, by looking at the children you see driving them, because there is no obvious demarcation between those who are legally allowed to drive and those who are driving them on all of these trails that we have, and not only on the trails but also on places that are not trails: on highways, which is strictly forbidden, and causing a danger to others.

We do have some excellent trails in this Province. We do have excellent opportunities for outdoor activities. We have a marvelous cross-island trail with the Provincial Trailway and we do have to be careful that people who are driving these all-terrain vehicles or motorized vehicles of any sort are obeying the laws and regulations.

I am not going to get into detail about the big controversy of mixed uses of certain trails. That is a different matter for another day, but I do want to say that I am extremely concerned. We are moving into the summer period now, the 24 May weekend was just last weekend. Everybody is getting excited about the ability to go into the country, using these vehicles, and it is time that we had a very high profile bit of information out to the public. I would encourage the minister, very soon, as the school year ends in another two or three weeks, to do something by way of public information to make sure that young people in the schools who are going off, out of school in a couple of weeks, that they know what the rules are: whether they are allowed to or not, that they have to have an awareness of public safety if they are permitted to drive these things, and that parents are somehow informed.

I do not know how the minister can do it. Perhaps she should get advice from her officials, but if every school child in this Province was able to bring home a piece of literature with them before the end of the school year, to their parents, or bring it home to the children, saying: Here are the rules. Here are the rules with relation to the operation of all-terrain vehicles in this Province, and please be advised that this is very important for your own safety, for public safety, and also to avoid being charged with an offence under the Highway Traffic Act and all of the consequences that flow from that.

I believe this is a very important matter of public safety for our public and for especially our children, Mr. Speaker, because we are entering into a summer season and I would hate to hear, once again, about serious accidents or even fatalities involving young people and all-terrain vehicles.

Obviously there are other summer activities that are problematic, such as swimming and boating, but we are talking here about the Highway Traffic Act and the use of all-terrain vehicles.

I know that the suggestion has been made by both sides of the House that somehow the increasing of these fines is a real deterrent here. I do not know how much of a deterrent it is. I know it is a big fundraiser or a big revenue - it is more of a revenue issue - particularly in dealing with late payments. That seems to be a way of generating extra revenue for the Treasury. I do not see that as something that we really should be concentrating on.

Also, Mr. Speaker, just in general, again we are talking about the principle here. Having high minimum fines can act as a hardship in certain cases. Sometimes there are inadvertent kinds of offences that people make. You can see complications, oftentimes, where individuals could be potentially charged with three or four offences in doing the same kind of thing and be stuck with, and the judge being stuck with, being forced to levy a minimum fine regardless of the circumstances and regardless of, if there is a technical violation of the act. There does not seem to be any discretion left to the judge to allow for the specific circumstances of the individual or in some cases the event itself. Clearly some of these - and perhaps the minister can explain whether all of these - some of these are a result of the service increases that were brought about as a result of the Budget. I think some of them were planned by the previous Administration. Is that correct? I do not know. I have not had time to analyze the forty pages, I think it is, of the list. It is about forty pages of listing each individual section of the act with a new minimum fine, in some cases. For example, a minimum fee here of motorcycle drivers operating without a helmet or eye protection, the minimum fine is now $100. The same is for a passenger.

Driving a motor vehicle with stickers on windows, I do not know whether that applies to all of the stickers that you see on the backs of windows that seem to be the fashion of various radio stations and things like that. They give them away, and you see them on windshields all the time, but apparently there may be a minimum fine of $45 for that.

Here is a good one: Driving motor vehicle with ornaments obstructing vision. I do not know how many little doggies you would have to have in the back of a car to obstruct your vision, although I saw one the other day with about six or seven wagging heads in the back of a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It was certainly distracting. I do not know if it obstructed the vision of the people inside, but we have all sorts of interesting sections of the Highway Traffic Act which give rise now, apparently, to minimum fines, the offences for driving these vehicles. I guess, if even you borrowed somebody's car and did not even know there were wagging dogs in the back of the windshield, and drove it, you would be charged with the minimum fine for driving that.

As I say, these are all specifics. If there is anything, when I read this over the next few days and find anything that is startling, I would be happy to bring it up at the Committee stage of the bill, but I did want to take this few moments to say first of all that I support the notion of having more people in the enforcement level attuned to the Highway Traffic Act, enabled to intervene.

If you live in a small community and somebody is driving around an all-terrain vehicle on the roads - and I am sure anybody in this House of Assembly has seen that - if somebody were to pick up the phone and call the RCMP, by the time they may have come, twenty minutes or half an hour, or longer, later, there would be nobody driving around the roads with the all-terrain vehicle because it would have passed. If you have more people, the conservation officers, the wildlife officials and others, who have the right to carry out enforcement, we might have a better chance of eliminating some of the dangers associated with driving these vehicles on the roads.

I saw it myself, Mr. Speaker, last weekend, kids driving along the roads, on the paved portion of the road, at pretty great speed, without the kind of control that I think you would require, and again at a very young age. I think this happens at a very high level of occurrence in this Province. I am no expert on it. I just know what I see, and I know what I hear other people say.

I would urge the minister, and I do not know what programs she has for identifying urgent matters within her department, or what kind of budget she has for promotion, but if every school child - not primary school but certainly elementary and high school child - in this Province had a piece of paper before they went home from school, by the end of June or the twenty-something of June, whenever they are finished, indicating that there are special rules for all-terrain vehicles that they must adhere to or they will be - if they are not allowed to drive them, then they should not be driving them. If they are allowed to drive them, that they have to have helmets, and they are not allowed to drive on highways, and various other rules, and let them know that they are subject to these rules and fines and perhaps getting into very serious trouble with the law, or even if they do something terribly wrong, having the vehicle impounded. This might be a very useful time of the year to enlighten young people and their families about that particular matter because I think it is a serious one that we should pay some attention to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 21.

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? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 21)

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

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

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 20.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No.2." (Bill 20)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is to implement changes that were announced at Budget time and that we had laid out as part of our platform.

In clause 1 of the bill it provides for a personal income tax reduction for low-income families. With that bill - I will make it very brief, Mr. Speaker - individuals who make less than $12,000 per year would pay no provincial income tax. Families at $19,000 or less, that could amount to a minimum of - well, it is $416 it could mean to certain individuals. Obviously, that would be phased out at higher incomes.

There is one other provision that we decided to put into clause 2 of the bill. We will make changes to increase the seniors' benefit to seniors in the Province by allowing the inflationary costs to be added on. Each year as this benefit - it loses due to increased inflation or basically bracket creep. You will find that it becomes less significant in value. We are, by virtue of this bill, giving authority to index it to the Consumer Price Index for this Province. This past year the Consumer Price Index for Newfoundland and Labrador was 2.9 per cent. Each year then we would increase it by that so we do not get an erosion of this value to seniors and people in low-income who need it, and people who are probably in the most need of funds. So, this is positive. It allows seniors, in particular, and low-income people - many seniors fit into this category, students also fit into this category - to allow them to get a deduction that they pay no income tax below those amounts, $1,200 or $19,000 with a family of two. We think this is a positive thing. It shows our commitment to addressing concerns for low-income people and it also allows people who need it, and particularly seniors, to prevent the slide and erosion of their spending power, especially through inflation as occurred.

I must say, the two clauses are very positive. The third one, basically, made reference to here, is that this will come into effect January 1, 2005, so it would be ready to be implemented for the next tax year.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to Bill 20, I would agree with the Minister of Finance that the concept is good. It is unfortunate that low-income earners in our Province will not find the advantage or the benefit of this piece of legislation until two years' time. Actually, it will be 2006 before they can find any of this money in their pockets.

It is unfortunate that we only, about fifteen minutes ago, talked about cancelling the tax credit for our students, all in the matter of one evening. This particular bill will not be much of an advantage for students who intend to live and work here in this Province, because I would like to think that most students who have gone through post-secondary education will have an advantage to make beyond $12,000 or $19,000.

It is interesting that this particular government did not see fit to provide our seniors with a fuel subsidy this year. If you look at the Consumer Price Index, last year it was 2.9 per cent. This is the same government that is going to be imposing high fees on seniors. They may be going to give them indexing on their seniors' benefit but there will be no way that will offset the high fees that seniors are going to have to pay. If any senior out there needs to have their licence reassessed because of a medical problem, they will have to pay $100 for that. Last year they could go and get that medical reassessment for free. If any senior out there needs an ambulance, there is going to be an increase from $75 to $115. Do you think that 2.9 per cent is going to cut it? I do not think so.

How about the park fees? If seniors want to have a night or a weekend or a season park fee or a shower, all of these things are going to cost more. How about a senior wanting to register their vehicle, their driver's licence? That is going from $140 to $180. How about a senior, someone who is left behind having to get a death certificate? That used to be free, now it is going to be $25.

Mr. Speaker, I will have plenty of time to expound on this particular bill. The concept is great. There is nothing wrong with the concept but it does not match what you are doing to seniors on the other hand and all the fees that you have brought in to cripple seniors and limit their income and their spending power.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this legislation, Bill 20. Mr. Speaker, this legislation - and I guess this measure in the Budget is probably about the only thing in the Budget which allows members opposite to use the word progressive before conservative in the name of their party. I have to say that it is a progressive measure. I do support it fully, but I would make the same criticism as has been made by the previous speaker.

We hear members opposite when they sing their own praises, which they are want to do, talk about the Budget and what we are doing. We are giving a tax credit for low-income people and all that sort of stuff. There are an awful lot of people out there who are going to expect to see that on their next tax forms, Mr. Speaker, or the ones after that, but they are not going to see it on either of those because this does not come in until January 1, 2005. It is not until people are paying their taxes in 2006 will they notice any difference.

Mr. Speaker, that is a real big disappointment, I would say, to the people of this Province and a bit of a slight of hand on the part of the government in convincing people that they have, in fact, the best interest of people at heart because they are going to alienate a fair number of people for what, I believe, is a good measure. I think it could be raised from $12,000 to $15,000. That might be a little more progressive. I think the Government of New Brunswick have a measure which relieves people making less than $15,000 - not $12,000 - from paying income tax to the Province of New Brunswick. But it is a progressive measure. I am very pleased to see that this idea has been brought into practice because once it starts, the idea then is to see how far it can go to ensure that people who are - you know, if you are earning $12,000 you are below the poverty level. We campaigned on a measure that would ensure that people working on the minimum wage -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We put forth a measure in the last election that would guarantee that people working on the minimum wage would earn, at least, the poverty level at $8 an hour; would earn in excess of $16,000, which is the poverty level for a single individual. There are still an enormous number of people, between $12,000 and $16,000 annual income, who will be paying income tax, despite this legislation and this progressive measure.

So, the concept has been introduced by this bill. I would say it is progressive in the sense that the concept is now being made into law, that it is recognized that people who earn very small incomes should not be paying income tax. You cannot turn around and charge someone income tax and then turn around and say: Well, we have to supplement your income because you are not making enough money. It does not make any sense. We have a society where far too many people - I believe there is a meeting tonight of an organization who want to talk about the fact that so many families cannot afford, do not have enough money to be able to afford to have a nutritious diet because the cost of nutritious food is much higher than what they receive in social assistance payments or working at the minimum wage.

This is a first step, in my view, in addressing the fact that low-income people are burdened with income taxes. Surprising to many, I suppose, who do not know what it is like to either make the minimum wage or to have to try and live in a family with very little income. It may come as a surprise to those who are middle class or upper middle class, that people who make $10,000 or $12,000 a year as income, actually pay income tax. But, that is the astounding fact, Mr. Speaker, that people who make $12,000 would probably pay $1,200 a year in income tax if they only have a single individual deduction. So, it is a start.

I do not know, and perhaps the minister in closing debate on this can tell us how much the estimated cost of this is? That would be a very interesting figure. By giving a tax deduction it is - what I called previously - a tax expenditure. It is a tax expenditure, just as the tax expenditure for students is. We have an estimate of $3 million on that. Perhaps the minister, in closing debate on this bill at second reading, can tell us what the cost of this is to the Treasury in estimated costs in the year 2005? Because all of these tax measures have a cost. I know the hon. member, when he was in Opposition, was very keen on knowing all the numbers. As Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I would be shocked if he did not know the number for this one.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ensure that the minister actually does get up in response to close debate and give us the number as to what this particular tax measure will cost the Treasury because it is a useful piece of information to know from a public policy point of view. What kind of foregone tax are we talking about here? We need to know that because we would like to consider what other efforts could be made to perhaps ensure that people earning less than the poverty line or low-income cut off by Statistics Canada, what kind of taxes they are paying and what the value would be in reducing those taxes or eliminating them. We do know, of course, that the federal government, the federal tax system, is still there for people. We now have a separated system where the provincial tax, the provincial income tax, is separated from the federal income tax and we can therefore have policies like this in our Province, which is a very good thing, because it allows for the development of favourable tax laws to meet the needs of our citizens in this Province, and this is an example of how our Province is now freed from the federal Income Tax Act. We do not have to act in tandem, but this does only cover provincial income tax and not federal, and does not come in until the year 2005.

I would hope that the minister, when he closes debate, will tell us what the cost of this tax measure is, because we would like to know how much money is actually being given back to people who, prior to this act coming into force in 2005, will have to pay tax on that income, which is $12,000 or less.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do regard it as a progressive step. Unfortunately, it is not being brought in immediately, such as the other tax measures have been, particularly the increases that have been put on these very same people. These very same people have to pay the increased fees for ambulances if they are forced to use an ambulance, or for any of the other dozens and dozens and hundreds of fees that the Minister of Government Services and Lands will be collecting.

Now, this minister brought in a budget measure which is going to raise $25 million more in fees. Twenty-five million dollars more in fees. The Nova Scotia government brought in some fee increases to balance their budget for a population two or three times the size of ours, but their fee increases amounted to about $5 million, and they went so far as to roll back income tax breaks for wealthy people, and add an additional tax band for those making in excess of $100,000 a year. We did not do any of those things. This government did not do any of those things. They should have, Mr. Speaker. They should have brought our corporate income tax up to the levels of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but at least they provided some relief here, down the road, for people at the lower income scale. It would be interesting to hear the minister tell us how much this is expected to cost the Treasury but be passed back to individuals earning less than $12,000 a year, and families, in 2005.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this initiative because it is a start down a positive road which we would like to see improvements on over the years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were a few things alluded to by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I will address them. He did indicate over $25 million in fees and so on. Yes, that amount was in the Budget. There was $7 million specifically earmarked. I will inform him that the Provincial Roads Program is normally around $23 million. There was a fee put on registrations to bring it from $140 to $180, and that $7 million is added to the roads program to allow us to spend $30 million because of the serious situation of roads in the Province. We would like to be able to do it out of other revenues. For example, in our Province, 35 per cent of the roads are over twenty years old. In the Atlantic Provinces, 20 per cent of them are over twenty years old. There is not a road in Ontario over fifteen years old. So a certain chunk, over 25 per cent, roughly, I guess, 28 per cent or 29 per cent, of that fee is earmarked to serve a purpose on our road system. The other amounts were, yes, in fees. I guess people of all income levels pay fees. They pay fees, whatever the fees may be. Some of them are low, but a lot of them are middle, and high-income people do use those services.

Another point he mentioned with being able to do something immediately, yes, we have a serious fiscal situation. We would have liked to be able to do it retroactively to January for this tax year. It was a difficult thing to do. We wanted to give people, seniors, a break because they are the most vulnerable people in society, and low-income people in particular.

There is $5.3 million - I gave that in my Budget Speech. This item has been allocated for the year to deal with this problem of, I guess, taxes on low-income people. Hopefully, as things get better in the future, we could make more positive changes and increase that level. We could not, within our Budget this year, do that. We are cognizant of the difficulties that seniors and low-income people face, and students and so on. People are trying to work and go to school, also in the process. They would benefit. An estimated $30,000, to a minor or a full extent, would benefit by this in total.

We did, in the previous bill, and the Finance Critic did make reference to it and I just want to point out, too, there was a previous bill passed here, and she made reference to it, dealing with students, where they paid 25 per cent of the principal payment, would be reduced by - depending on, I guess, it was disabled up to 30 per cent - 20 per cent or 30 per cent. In an average we will say 25 per cent of the principal. If you look at it, in that area. That was a measure, Mr. Speaker, that is not something that is going to happen in the future. That is something that happened last year too. We were cognizant of that. I have indicated, and the members on the other side of the House said in their Budget last year, and I accept that - in their Budget, and I did go back and check the Budget - the Budget did say that they were going to bring in some measure or some form of break for students. They said they wanted to consult with students. Well, over the course, I guess, of the spring or summer they consulted and they realized they probably were going to do it by giving a direct credit on your principal payment.

When we took office on November 6, that was one of the issues that came across my desk, whether we were going to honour that. It was announced in the Budget. There was no legislation brought to the House the spring to do it. The House did not sit in the fall. We had to make a decision last year, even before we prepared our Budget, before we laid out our plans for this year. We had to make a decision if we were going to do something at the time. At the time, we made a decision that, look, even though we have not finalized what we are going to do for low-income people - this came after - we said, this came in this next fiscal year; we did make allowance for the past fiscal year. I wrote the Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, it was called at the time, and notified them that we would institute that so they could incorporate the changes in the 2003 tax forms. That was done, and anybody who filed their taxes this winter for the last tax year got that benefit there. We decided that it was not a program we were going to move forward on. We did look at priorities. We would love to be able to do a variety of things that affect students and other low-income people. We thought this was at least positive in that it is comprehensive. It covers everybody who is low income, whether you are a senior, whether you are a student, whatever the case may be. I think, in trying to do something to have it at that level was all we could fiscally afford at this time.

We would love to be able to increase that in the future. It is an issue as we look at each respective budget and we can find the necessary slack there in the budget, an opportunity to be able to do that. It is a high priority to deal with that.

I think seniors and other people would be pleased that we have recognized that people getting those low incomes below $12,000 should not pay any taxes in this Province. I think the principle of this bill is noble. The principle of the bill is very important, and looking at $19,000, a family of two, is not a big amount of income. The least we can do is say we will exempt them from any provincial income tax.

Also, we wanted to ensure in this bill that seniors and people who receive a benefit, it would not be eroded each year, and that is why we have indexed it to the CPI to be able to allow them to at least be able to maintain an equivalent value from year to year, that it will not be eroded by increase in the Consumer Price Index.

In addressing these points there, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of this Bill 20.

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 Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2. (Bill 20)

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? On Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill 23)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 23 is a bill to allow the pension plan at Memorial University to be indexed. That would be similar to indexing that now occurs within the Public Service Pension Plan and the NLTA pension plan here in our Province.

In fact, the pension plan at Memorial University, while it is not 100 per cent funded, is very close to it. It has been around 100 per cent. It is in the 97 per cent range. To use this, clause 2 of the bill, it is referenced there in the explanatory notes for anybody who wants to refer to that. This requires that both the employees and the Board of Regents make equal contributions to that fund that is sufficient to cover any unfunded liability to amortize that.

There is a small amount right now, roughly $8 million in total. That is all the amount in the hundreds of millions of this fund that is now not fully funded, and to amortize that into the rate to make sure that it is a fully funded plan. That is something that it has been in the past, or just a small dip. Like a lot of pension funds, two of the last three years - not this past year, but the previous two years a lot of pension funds took loses and so on, the markets were down, the investment area. It has rebounded this year, overall; the pension funds.

This is to give Memorial University, the people there, the opportunity to have indexing on their pension plan and to make sure that the contributions contributed by the employer, the Board of Regents and the employee, of either the participants - recipients of this plan will be able to fund that sufficiently and also the indexing of this. So, that is basically what this is about. It is strictly to provide for the indexing of a pension plan at Memorial University. That is, for all intents and purposes, just about 100 per cent funded.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister of Finance pointed out, this is one of the pension plans that is pretty much, you can say, 100 per cent funded. This bill talks to Consumer Price Indexing of that particular pension plan and the commitment that - both the Board of Regents make equal contributions, as well as the employees. What a great position to be in.

When you look back over the Auditor General's report, the Auditor General went on to say that in 1998 government started to make special payments into pensions plans here in this Province. Since 1998 there is $840 million paid into the unfunded pension plans, other than Memorial University. It is interesting, even after that large contribution the unfunded liability has still increased by $200 million. Now, a lot of that is for reasons of investment. Investment in pension plans, not only in our Province but throughout the country, has suffered tremendous losses over the past two or three years because mutual funds and stock markets have changed and so on. It is unfortunate, because when you look at our deficit overall as a Province, what is driving our deficit and making it look worse than it really is, is the unfunded pension liability of pensions for public sector workers in this Province. In fact, it paints the picture much worse than it is. I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, about three weeks ago, pointed out that, in essence, our deficit has not grown really. It is the unfunded pension liability that is driving the deficit to what it is today.

Memorial University, they are in a very unique position - the Memorial University Pensions Act - because they are pretty much 100 per cent funded, and to add indexing at this time puts them in a unique situation. They are, I guess, in a class all by themselves, because to have legislation go through this House now speaks only to the Consumer Price Indexing of this particular pension plan. It is a plan that I am sure most other public sector workers would like to be in that situation. I am sure, as a government, we wish they were as well.

We will have plenty of time. This is basically small measures here, this act. I do not think there is anything that anybody can object to. So, we will talk about it much further as we get into Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 23, An Act to Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, at second reading. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful to talk about this pension plan and why it is in such good shape as compared to the other pension plans. The way the government talks you would not know but it was the employees fault that there was some sort of unfunded pension liability hanging around. When, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the success of the MUN pension plan tells us where the problem lies.

The MUN Pensions Act always required the university to put in an amount that met the actuarial needs of the fund as an employer's contribution, and they did so. The MUN Pension Plan fund had the contribution of the employees taken from their pay - just as the public sector workers have their contribution taken from their pay - and put into a fund. The public sector pension funds, the employer did not put in their share. So, the massive unfunded pension liability results from the fact that the employer, in the case of the government, did not contribute. Why the MUN Pension Plan is in such good shape is because the employer, in that case, did contribute. They are required, by law, to make that contribution.

What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, this business - and I am not sure the minister was totally accurate when he said that the purpose of this addition is to straighten out the unfunded liability. It seems to me that clause 2 - when they talk about an additional contribution being made, the Minister of Finance is now able to set the rate of contribution paid by the employees at a level sufficient to fund one-half of the service cost. That is the most recent actuarial cost of producing the pension over the years, but what is really interesting here is by also the cost of amortization over forty years of the unfunded liability which is created by - in other words, on the coming into force of this section arising from the cost of providing index benefits to past service under section 24.1. So, not only are people who are hired tomorrow going to get the benefit of the indexing but so are all the people who have accumulated past services. That indexing creates an unfunded liability because the money is not there. What is the solution, Mr. Speaker? That is what is important here.

The solution is to put in place a rate that would look after that over forty years. In other words it is not an immediate problem, any more than the current unfunded liability in our pension plans are immediate problems. So, when we talk about this ballooning unfunded liability it is not something that will require to be paid today or tomorrow or the next year, but if we do have in place a plan, such as we have right here right now, to, in fact, increase the benefits - this measure is increasing the benefits of MUN pensioners and that comes at a cost. That cost is being paid for over the next forty years. It is not being paid for tomorrow or the next day but people who are going to be benefitting more from that over the next number of years will get that benefit because they are already getting credit for past service. That, itself, by increasing the benefits for the future, creates an unfunded liability which must be looked after and this bill looks after it by saying we will fix it over forty years.

So, when the Minister of Finance, in other context, starts talking about the big deficit that we have, the unfunded liability and all of that, he should be, in the same breath, telling us that is a problem that might need to be solved over a forty-year period. In fact, he got up in the House the other day and said that the unfunded liability in the Public Service Pension Plan, if we get the same rate of return, that we did since 1980 in the future, that we will not have a problem at all.

Now, we do have a problem with some pension funds. I know the Member for Mount Pearl knows this. The teachers' pension fund is in pretty rough shape. The teachers' pension fund has the largest unfunded liability of the pension funds that we have and something obviously needs to be done about that. There has been a couple of changes here. The change by having the partial indexing for inflation up to a maximum of 1.2 per cent annually, but there is a very interesting provision here too, Mr. Speaker, that has a bit of a history. Section 12 of the act is also amended by saying that the board shall contribute to the fund an amount equal to the contributions paid by employees under the act. That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. Why would you have a provision like that? Everybody knows that the employer pays one-half and the employees pay the other half. Or don't they? Well, people thought that was the rule, Mr. Speaker, as time went through because that was the kind of deals that were negotiated.

The MUN pension plan was doing so well that the Board of Regents, back about ten years ago, decided they would take what they called a contribution holiday. We will take in the money from the individuals who are paying the pensions. We will take their 6 per cent or 7 per cent, or whatever it was at the time, we will deduct that from the pay and put it into the fund, but we, as a university, will not contribute. Instead of contributing to the fund, they took the money that was contributed to the fund and spent it on something else, and the legislation did not require them to put the money into the fund. That money into the fund could have perhaps helped to provide the benefits of indexing, to make improvements to the fund, because the fund was doing very well. The theory being, of course, that if the fund is doing well in good times and it stays there, then you can provide additional benefits. If it is doing poorly, there is no trouble to come in - as the minister would want to do and the previous Minister of Finance negotiated with the public sector workers the last time - to, in fact, over contribute.

We have people who are under the Public Service Pension Plan - that particular plan which has the largest number of people involved. They are paying about a percentage point more, and are paying 9 per cent instead of 8 per cent. They are paying more than it would actually cost to produce the pension that they are getting because the employees are being asked to make up for the shortfall caused by the fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- to make up for the fact that the government of the day, of yesterday and the day before, did not make the required contributions. That started only in the 1990s. That is not the previous government but starting back in the 1980s when we first started having pension funds. First of all, we just had obligations. In the 1980s we started funds and in the 1990s the government actually started contributing their share to them. Meanwhile, the MUN pension plan was required by law to ensure that it was actuarially sound and we have the result here today, as the minister said, of an almost fully funded pension. We are creating, by this legislation, an unfunded pension liability that has to be dealt with by increasing the obligation and contribution for the next while, but it is a forty year issue and is going to be dealt with over the next forty years, and that is the proper way to do this sort of thing. Perhaps the fund itself will do well enough that it will not take forty years to do it, just as it has happened in Ontario when they solved their unfunded liability by bringing in measures in the early 1990s.

I would urge the Minister of Finance, when he is talking about this, not to exaggerate, not to be fearmongering, not to create uncertainty and fear out there but talk about the facts that the unfunded liability and the pension is a figure that goes up and down, depending on the performance of the stock markets. As the minister himself said, the last year has been pretty good. The two years before that were pretty bad for investors of all kinds, including people who were managing pension funds and trying to meet obligations. Hopefully, we will not have that kind of big drop in the next little while and the pension numbers will improve over the next few years, particularly if we take measures which will ensure that over the long haul these pension funds will be healthy. Hopefully, if all the pension funds in this Province were as healthy as the MUN pension fund, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance would have a lot less to worry about and a lot less ammunition to go about fearmongering as he tries to cut back on expenditures and preach doom and gloom about the Province's finances and future.

If the same kinds of forward-looking measures were brought forward to have a forty year amortization plan of the unfunded liability and the government was making a significant contribution to that, we would have less of a problem. We do see, when you look carefully at the government's financial statements, that the major significant contributor to the increase in the public sector direct debt over the last five years has been the $800 million that the government borrowed itself in order to make contributions to the unfunded pension liability that had been accrued over many, many years. We do have a situation that is of concern but we expect this government to address it in a responsible way over the long haul, over an amortization period of thirty-five or forty years, such as being done in the MUN pension plan, to finance an improvement in that plan to provide for indexing up to 1.2 per cent of the value of inflation, which is a very positive thing for retirees and survivors who are beneficiaries of the MUN pension plan, the faculty members, the staff members at MUN, all-deserving like all workers who are lucky enough to have a good pension plan, deserving of having those benefits protected from inflation.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do support this legislation, subject to any comments that I may receive. I made some requests to the employee representatives at the University, to see if there is anything in particular they have concerns about, but I do understand this came forward from the Board of Regents with the support of the pension committees of the representative of the employees. I do understand it is being brought forward by the agreement of the parties to the fund and therefore should be acceptable to all sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. If the minister speaks now he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is correct. This is something that is supported by the pension plan members. I think it is important to move forward with that indexing. The plan is a plan that is one of the strongest plans. In fact, it is the strongest plan, stronger than the plan that is in the public service.

I do want to mention, the member did make reference, when I mentioned last year, last year has been a very positive year in growth, when the pension plan the two previous years were down. I think, in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, since 1980, when we went into the pooled pension fund, the performance over that period of time, I would say to the hon. member, has been over 10 per cent we have achieved since 1980, so I think that shows that it has achieved very well overall.

The reason it is still unfunded, and that is one of the things that I am now going to address, I think they made reference to one of the reasons why, basically, it is unfunded so much. One of the main reasons is because governments did not put their portion of monies into that and it got spent on salaries, primarily, because the bulk of government money is salaries it was spent on, whether it was roads, or bridges, or any other area, whether it was in health care or equipment costs, whatever the reason.

Now, had government contributed its share to that, it still would not have been fully funded. It would not have been, and that is the point I have said, in dealing with unions and so on, and with other people. Government accepts its responsibility for the portion that it should have put in, and had that earned its money in that period, we accept full responsibility for that. The shortfall, over, above and beyond that, should be shared by employer and employee. That is, I think, a pretty fair assessment. I said that ten years ago when I was asked the questions by then the NTA, the NLTA now, and the same thing I said at functions. When I was in Opposition, I went out to meetings, invited, and said it. I was invited to a meeting by my colleague out in Clarenville once and there was a whole forum of government members there, and one of the points I made was that government - you cannot expect taxpayers to pay for the full unfunded amount if a portion of that should have been on a shared basis. That is fair game, and that is important. That was one of the major discussions, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. That was one of the major discussions when you looked at joint trusteeship in a plan that is not fully funded. Getting people to agree to take that portion that would not have been funded anyway and sharing those costs was one of the things that bogged down joint trusteeship. That was one of the aspects. I think we acknowledge that. Government has always acknowledged it. I have said it across the table in dealing with the unions, that we accept our share of the responsibility for what did not go in there.

One of the reasons why, I might want to add further to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is that he said, if the money was in, it would have been earning. Absolutely right. Because it is not there, we have to accrue a certain amount as if the money, what would have been there - that is where we get into accrual accounting and the unfunded pension liability. We have to allow for that because that is a debt that has to be paid in the future.

The government of today, Mr. Speaker, has to honour that pension plan to that degree and we have to do those accruals. Under accrual basis of accounting, not only what is there on a cash basis, we have to make allowance for that. That is why, when you see an accrual budget, you are seeing our deficit at $362 million on a cash basis but you are seeing $840 million on an accrual basis because we have to account, into that accounting method, money we are incurring as a debt this year that we are not going to pay out until you or somebody else retires. They have to receive that. That is a cost we have to count. That is why it is important to have that counted.

On top of the pension, one of the reasons the deficit is $840 million on an accrual basis, is today we are incurring costs today on health and life insurance that, when all of us retire, the whole public service retires, whether it is the nurses and teachers retire, we have to pay health and life insurance costs for them until the day they die. During those twenty or thirty years, they are called post-retirement liabilities. We have to factor, it is a cost incurred today that has to be paid later. Under accrual basis of accounting you have to book that cost when you incur it, not when you pay it out. For that reason it is right and proper. There is only one true method of accounting for the finances of this Province. That is a method that is endorsed by the CICA. That is a method of the Public Sector Accounting Board of the CICA. That is why we include it and the PricewaterhouseCoopers report included those figures in that report, because it was the right and proper thing to do and it had to be done under generally accepted accounting principles.

That is why these costs had to be incurred. Whether it is a bill that you pay out today and pay for it or whether it is a cost that you are incurring that you have to pay out tomorrow, all of these costs have to be included on the books of our Province. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we do not keep three sets of books in this government. There is one true set of books, and other ones are aspects that make up that total amount. That is why we have numbers games for so long, Mr. Speaker, that people were confused and did not understand.

With that, Mr. Speaker, this is a positive piece of legislation. It allows for indexing. It allows for the Memorial University Pension Plan to be able to move forward there and be able to have a service that is afforded to other people in the public service.

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 Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 23)

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? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 23)

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

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

Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges, be now a read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges." (Bill 24)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not sure if he is ever going to be a judge, I say to the member across the House, not that he would not do a good job, Mr. Speaker, not at all. I am sure we might get some support on that side of the House for this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not a chance.

MR. SULLIVAN: One of my colleagues says he hasn't got a chance.

This bill here puts into law a judge's pension plan. In fact, in 2001, there was a resolution came before this House, presented by the former government, to allow for a separate pension plan for judges. Up to then, up to that provision, judges participated under the Public Service Pension Plan. They had to elect to stay within that plan or come under this new plan, and most of them decided to come under this particular plan. Under this plan there is provision made - it is pretty straightforward - there was a tribunal that put forth recommendations. They made recommendations that came to the previous government. They had until September of last year, September past, whether they were going to accept or appeal or act on these recommendations. In the absence of that appeal period ended on September by virtue of having put forth no appeal, it now becomes incumbent on this government to move on those recommendations. That is why we are here today, and that is the basis of the recommendations to move forward with this.

Basically, we are putting in place - it is structured very similar. I will not go into it. There is an opportunity under Committee to look at the particular clauses, but it is a very standard amount. It requires an equal contribution similar to other pension plans in government. It allows, especially when most judges are probably in their later years, the maximum under this to qualify would be twenty years. Many may not even get that number of years. Anyone who does, the twenty years would be the maximum period. At forty-five, for example, if you are appointed, age sixty-five you would be before you get the maximum number of years.

There are certain things that make it a little different in that regard, because most people who enter other pension plans do so, generally speaking, at much earlier ages and they have longer years of accumulation of services. So this is something, I guess, a fait accompli in the regard that it was put forth by the tribunal, recommended. No action was taken to take any alternate action or any appeal of this, so it now becomes incumbent to move this legislation forward.

I will certainly listen to any particular comments that people might have, and if there are any specific references to aspects, I am sure we can deal with them in Committee at different clauses of the bill.

That, generally, in a nutshell, is what it is about. I will now conclude my comments to indicate that it was an optional thing. Judges could select this one or stay with the other plan; and, for the benefit of those who did, we have a separate pension plan that this will enable us to establish for that purpose.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of comments. It is indeed good to see this bill here, actually. We have had ten years plus of different tribunals over the years, starting back with the Wells Administration, and appeals, appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada and everything else concerning what was appropriate for our Provincial Court Judges in terms of terms and conditions of employment and remuneration and so on. Finally, the tribunals, after all of the court battles, appeals and more appeals, it was decided what would be appropriate, and most of the issues were resolved, except for this issue of the pension which required a lot of thought to be put into it to design a program that would indeed apply just to Provincial Court Judges.

This, of course, is the whole tribunal process, and the pension plan for judges is all wrapped up in this idea of judicial independence. I guess it is sort of the coming of age for this Province in the sense that we are one of the few left in Canada now who do not have the whole comprehensive package for Provincial Court Judges in the country. This will, indeed, be the finishing piece of that picture, to have this implemented and come to fruition.

It was an initiative of the last Administration in the sense that the decision was made not to appeal. There had been ten, twelve years of that and it had finally been, we felt, properly resolved. Now it finds its way into this legislation and we will certainly be speaking in support of it.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 24, regarding the Provincial Court Judges Pension Plan. As the previous speaker, who was the Minister of Justice during part of this, would know, as would the Minister of Education who was Justice Critic on this side during some of this period, this is all about judicial independence. The battle was going on for about ten years or more when the principle needed to be established that Provincial Court Judges were independent from the government. Even though they were employed by the government and paid by the provincial government, as opposed to Federal Court Judges, the Minister of Justice had control over the salaries of the judges and there had been a number of court cases that came forward challenging the independence of judges. In fact, there were people whose cases, whose convictions, were challenged on the basis that the judge was not independent. The Minister of Justice could move them around and had control over their salaries.

There was a piece of legislation, I recall, being brought in to allow for a tribunal to be established to make recommendations as to how Provincial Court Judges should be paid. That tribunal made recommendations. The government of the day, the Liberal government of the day, thought that the recommendations were a bit too rich and proceeded to bring about changes to the recommendations to the report, file the report in the House, but made legislative changes to the recommendations, to the actual provisions, and said that they would be changed in a manner agreed to by the Minister of Justice and the Provincial Court Judges Association. Well, that was challenged in this House by the Minister of Education, who was then Opposition Critic, and myself, as being totally contrary to the principle that was supposed to be at work in the sense that there would have to be judicial independence.

That eventually was challenged, Mr. Speaker. It was challenged here in our Supreme Court, in the Court of Appeal, and eventually the Supreme Court of Canada made rulings on judicial independence to the point that it is very difficult for, and perhaps impossible for, the government to change the recommendations that are brought forward by independent tribunals. So I will not speak on the details of the pension plan. I do not know how it compares to other plans across the country, but I do know that the courts have told the Legislatures across the country that judicial independence requires that the government follow the recommendations of independent tribunals that are established with government input on them, and unless there is some very substantial reason, which I gather does not exist in this case, I understand this legislation is actually implementing the recommendations as they were. I guess we can probably say that this legislation is probably therefore safe from challenge, and as the Opposition House Leader indicated, this is probably the end of a ten-year process of maturation of the independence of the provincial court judicial system in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for that we should be thankful that this process has now been implemented and there should be no further concern on that account.

We have a system that at least has - it may be expensive, Mr. Speaker, but at least it has met the tests of judicial impartiality, which are required in a democratic society, so that we do know that the government, who is perhaps the most significant litigant before our courts, whether it be as a prosecutor - when you see a case of prosecution before our courts, where somebody is being charged with an offence, well, the government, in the form of the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Justice representative, is there in the court. The government is a chief litigant all the way in provincial court matters, 95 per cent of which are, in fact, matters between the Crown and an individual who has been charged with one offence or another. In that circumstance, a person who is before a judge has to have confidence and faith that the judge is impartial and is not just there as an agent of the government, because the individual can say: Well, the government hires this guy. The government pays his salary. The government can do something to him if he does not act in the way that they want.

That challenge, Mr. Speaker, was made. It has now been resolved, finally, by the passage of Bill 24, that the system of remuneration of Provincial Court Judges, and now of pensions, of course, which is an important part of a compensation package now before the House in Bill 24, completes the package, I think, and conforms to the notion that judicial impartiality requires an independent tribunal establishing what a fair and reasonable remuneration is. The fact that is done by some outside body and not by the government is the important part of this bill as opposed to the individual clauses and the actual plan itself.

As the minister has said, it provided an optional plan initially on the recommendation of this tribunal, which most judges have opted into, and it is a plan that provides for a pension for judicial officers, the judges, who - as the minister indicated - may have fairly short careers as Provincial Court Judges, but the plan provides a combination, I believe, of registered retirement savings plan type programs plus a contributory plan similar to other pension plans that are in place in the public sector.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I say that I will support this legislation and just note that it does complete that cycle of the creation of judicial impartiality for Provincial Court Judges in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in conclusion, I want to mention that I guess judicial independence of judges is protected by the constitution, and that is one of the purposes there. They are not in the position to negotiate their salary or their benefits with government, and I think it is only appropriate that there is provision in the legislation for the tribunal to deal with those issues and to report on them. I think the next tribunal is due in September of this year.

One of the important things here that I want to mention, too, is that the tribunal unanimously recommended a pension plan that is now here before this House, and it is in this form that it is presented. So it is, I think, only appropriate that, by having an appropriate pension plan in place, it will allow people, both from the public and the private sector, to be able to be attracted to the judiciary in that manner, and I think it allows them, at least, who serve in that capacity, to be able to retire from the public service with a reasonable compensation.

The details are in the clauses of the bill. I will not get into these but it reaches the maximum of, I think, 66 2/3 per cent total and that would be so much per year up to that amount. There are provisions like in other legislation, for early retirement, with penalties beyond if you retire earlier than that. Those specifics can be thrashed out if anybody has particular questions there.

The thing here, Mr. Speaker, it is the unanimous recommendation of the tribunal, what we see here, and there have been no alterations or adjustments there. The important thing is that there be a plan in place to respect the independence of the judiciary, that constitutionally allows for that, and I think this is in keeping with that.

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 Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges. (Bill 24)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 24)

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

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

I compliment members on a good piece of parliamentary work today. I do move that the House now adjourn and be back tomorrow at 2 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 26, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, when I do believe we will be debating a motion put forward by the Opposition House Leader.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.